LOL they think they can win with the privacy angle? They've scraped the entire internet, including what is likely incredibly private and personal information, and they also log everything you do on the service. Get outta heah
Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
301–310 of 441 posts
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#302ClosedAI vacuums up and hoards all of your private chats to do terrible things and now complains when they must hand over your precious data without them receiving their cut.
This is funny!
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations Have you used ChatGPT? Your conversation history is on the left rail
"Have you used ChatGPT?" No Large number of upvotes on the quoted comment however. Maybe some of those voters are ChatGPT users I do searching from the command line in text mode. The script I use keeps a "log" (a customised SERP) of all query strings and search result URLs. I also have these URLs stored in the logs from the forward proxy. These are compressed using RePair. I can search the compressed logs faster this…
Downvotes is a tiny faction
3 versus 190+, so far
Many commenters cannot distinguish rhetorical questions from questions that seek an answer
By attempting to answer a rhetorical question one may only strengthen the point being made by the question, for example, poor decision-making, and may reveal an absence self-awareness
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
SyncThing syncs only when both clients are running at the same time. Nobody who edits a document on a website expects that they'll need to leave that browser window open in order to see the document in a different browser. Am I missing something? Is this seriously a heated HN debate over "why does this website need to store the text it sends to people who view the website?"?
We're not talking about collaborative tooling, just a record of what you've asked an AI assistant. If it doesn't sync right away, it's not the end of the world. I find that's true with most things. And the clients don't need to be running at the same time if you have a third device that's always on and receiving the changes from either (like a backup system). Eventually everything arrives. It's not as robust as what…
Chatgpt.com is essentially a CRUD app. What you're saying here amounts to saying that it could conceivably have been designed to work dramatically differently from all other CRUD apps. And obviously that's true, but why would it be?
It's a website! You submit text, that you'll view or edit later, so the server stores it. How is that controversial to a HN audience?
Also:
> the clients don't need to be running at the same time if you have a third device that's always on
An always-on device that stores data in order to sync it to clients is a server.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they're reproducing NY Times articles, in full, that that is non-transformative. That's the point of the case.
> That's the point of the case. No, its not. See the PDF of the actual case below. The case is largely about OpenAI training on the NY Times articles without permission. They do allege that it can reproduce their articles verbatim at times, but that's not the central allegation as it's obviously a bug and not an intentional infringement. You have to get way down to item 98 before they even allege it. https://nytco-as…
They alleged it in point 4?
"Defendants have refused to recognize this protection. Powered by LLMs containing copies of Times content, Defendants’ GenAI tools can generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style, as demonstrated by scores of examples. See Exhibit J. These tools also wrongly attribute false information to The Times."
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#306These are the same scumbags that scraped the entire internet including copyrighted books and private code without any regard for legality or ownership, now trying to spin them being sued for theft as a privacy issue.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the feeling, but that's not what this is. NYTimes has produced credible evidence that OpenAI is simply stealing and republishing their content. The question they have to answer is "to what extent has this happened?" That's a question they fundamentally cannot answer without these chat logs. That's what discovery, especially in a copyright case, is about. Think about it this way. Let's say this were a book store…
>NYTimes has produced credible evidence that OpenAI is simply stealing and republishing their content They shouldnt have any rights to data after its released. >That's a question they fundamentally cannot answer without these chat logs. They are causing more damage than anything chatGPT could have caused to NYT. Privacy needs to be held higher than corporate privilege. >Think about it this way. Let's say this were a…
I get that you're mad, and rightly should be for an invasion of your privacy, but the NYT would be foolish to use any of your data for anything other than this lawsuit, and to not delete it afterwards, as per their request.
They can't use this data against any individual, even if they explicitly asked, "How do I hack the NYT?"
The only potential issue is them finding something juicy in someone's chat, that they could publish as a story; and then claiming they found out about this juicy story through other means, (such as a confidential informant), but that's not likely an issue for the average punter to be concerned about.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#308I wouldn't want to make it out like I think OpenAI is the good guy here. I don't. But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private are now going to be scoured by the New York Times' lawyers. I'm aware of the third party doctrine and that if you put something online it can never be actually private. But I think this also runs counter to people's expectations when they're using the product. In c…
It is better if it is out in the open compared to just some select few diabolical organizations having access to it
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#309"The New York Times is demanding that we turn over 20 million of your private ChatGPT conversations." As might any plaintiff. NYT might be the first of many others and the lawsuits may not be limited to copyright claims Why has OpenAI collected and stored 20 million conversations (including "deleted chats") What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations By contrast the purpose of NYT's reques…
Is there a technical limitation that prevents chat histories from being stored locally on the user's computer instead of being stored on someone else's computer(s) Why do chat histories need to be accessible by OpenAI, its service partners and anyone with the authority to request them from OpenAI If users want this design, as suggested by HN commenters, if users want their chat histories to be accessible to OpenAI, i…
If I am sending HTTP POST requests using own choice of software via the command line to some website, e.g., an OpenAI server, then I can save those requests on local storage. I can keep a record of what I have done. This history does not need to be saved by OpenAI and consequently end up being included in a document production when (not if) OpenAI is sued. But I cannot control what OpenAI does, that's their decision
For example, I save all the POST request bodies I send over the internet in the local forward proxy's log. I add logs to tarballs and compress with an algorithm that allows for searching the logs in the tarballs without decompressing them
It does not matter what "reason" or "excuse" or "explanation" anyone presents, technical or otherwise, for why OpenAi does what it does
The issue is what are the consequences
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not commenting on the core point of your comment, only the "why retain for 30 days" question. Im an age of automated backups and failovers, deleting can be really hard. Part of the answer could simply be that syncing a delete across all the redundancies (while ensuring those redundancies are reliable when a disaster happens and they need to recover or maintain uptime) may take days to weeks. Also the 30 days coul…
What is the standard way of being forced to restore from backup while ensuring deleted data does not also become restored? Is every delete request stored so that it can be replayed against any restore?
[deleted]