Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 551 posts

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#321

Post by Romario77 »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #39
psychoslave wrote: post #28

What a surprise, a big corp collected large amount of personal data under some promises, and now reveals actually they will exploit it in completely unrelated manner.

The are valued at $170 Billion. Not quite the same as, but in same order of magnitude as OpenAI - while having only a single digit percent fraction of active users. They probably need to prepare for the eventual user data sellout, as it is becoming increasingly more obvious that none of the big players has a real and persistent tech leadership anymore. But millions and millions of users sharing their deepest thoughts…

Anthropic enterprise share is pretty significant - on order of 30%. I think at this time it's pretty significant.

I am expecting AI companies to start using ads, it's inevitable as they need to make money at some point and $20 a month won't do it.

For ads the number of users is the main thing - the more users you have the bigger the market and more money you could earn. Google desperately needs to be in this space, that's why they are throwing a ton of money on AI.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#322

Post by BalinKing »

senko wrote: post #98
wzdd wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everywhere else in Anthropic's interface, yes/no switches show blue when enabled and black when disabled. In the box they're showing about this change the slider shows grey in both states: visit it in preferences to see the difference! It's not just disappointing but also kind of sad that someone went to the effort to do this.

Just did and it behaves as expected for me in the Android app (ie. not the dark pattern you described)

I can confirm it's grey on both sides on the website.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#323

Post by SoftTalker »

latexr wrote: post #194

So far, no one in this thread seems surprised (or is admitting to it). But I genuinely would like to know if someone is surprised. I’d also like to know what lead you to believe this wouldn’t happen and if there’s anyone in the LLM space you’d trust to not pull the same stunt (and why do you still believe that). I genuinely want to know and would like to have a productive conversation. I would like to identify what m…

I believe it shouldn't happen. I'm not surprised. There is no web company (LLM or otherwise) I trust completely, let alone any of the major ad-funded ones, or the ones who are not yet profitable and desperately searching for ways to become so.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#324

Post by monsieurbanana »

Deegy wrote: post #320

I guess I'll take the other side of what most are arguing in this thread. Isn't it a great thing for to us to collectively allow LLM's to train on past conversations? LLM's probably won't get significantly better without this data. That said I do recognize the risk of only a handful of companies being responsible for something as important as the collective knowledge of civilization. Is the long term solution self cu…

You mean collectively allow us to train Claude's llm? Pretty big omission there

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#325

Post by ratelimitsteve »

losvedir wrote: post #296
ratelimitsteve wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that "with no additional activity" seems backdoor-ish though. If I said some things in a chat expecting privacy per the agreement, then they change the agreement, does that mean they can collect my data from that chat going forward or does it mean they can collect it retroactively?

Well you have to think about LLMs actually work. There is no "going forward". Every new token is generated based on the entire context window (chat history).

then you can retroactively implicitly opt in for processing, and that's a dark pattern if I've ever heard of one

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#326

Post by SoftTalker »

const_cast wrote: post #214
AlecSchueler wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many companies can disappear me to El Salvador?

And how much can the US government censor you versus companies? There's tradeoffs. The government, at least, has to abide by the constitution. Companies don't have to abide by jack shit. That means infinite censorship, searches and seizures, discrimination, you name it. We have SOME protection. Very few, but they're there. But if Uber was charging black people 0.50 cents more on average because their pricing model ha…

Yes, because race is a protected class.

If they were charging wealthy people 0.50 more on average because the model showed that they don't care about price that much, they would be fine.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#327

Post by KoolKat23 »

superposeur wrote: post #308

Everyone seems to be unsurprised by this move, but I’m genuinely shocked. What a shoot your own foot business decision. Google, evil though it be, doesn’t post the text of your gmails in its search results because who would consider using Gmail after that? This is the llm equivalent. Am I missing something?

This data is useful for reinforcement learning. All the others do it.

And most importantly, you can just opt-out.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#328

Post by bluecalm »

Deegy wrote: post #303
Syzygies wrote: post #193

Claude assists me in my math research. The scenario that concerns me is that Claude learns unpublished research ideas from me as we chat and code. Claude then suggests these same ideas to someone else, who legitimately believes this is now their work. Clearly commercial accounts use AI to assist in developing intellectual product, and privacy is mandatory. The same can apply to individuals.

If your work was truly novel, wouldn't the odds of it showing up in later models be extremely low given that these are probabilistic? In a sense these machines are outputting the aggregate of the collective thoughts of the commons. In order for concepts to be output they have to be quite common in the training data. Which works out kind of nice for privacy and innovation because by the time concepts are common enough…

They might optimize learning to weight novel/unexpected parts more in the future. The better the models become (the more the expect) the more value they will get from unexpected/new ideas.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#329

Post by turnsout »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #327
superposeur wrote: post #308

Everyone seems to be unsurprised by this move, but I’m genuinely shocked. What a shoot your own foot business decision. Google, evil though it be, doesn’t post the text of your gmails in its search results because who would consider using Gmail after that? This is the llm equivalent. Am I missing something?

This data is useful for reinforcement learning. All the others do it. And most importantly, you can just opt-out.

You can't opt out of the data retention policy.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#330

Post by croes »

klabb3 wrote: post #167
kossTKR wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh i see thanks. That's a dark design pattern, hiding stuff like that. No one cares about anything else but they have lots of superflous text and they are calling it "help us get better", blah blah, it's "help us earn more money and potentially sell or leak your extremely private info", so they are lying. Considering cancelling my subscription right this moment. I hope EU at leat considers banning or extreme-fining c…

EU or not, it baffled me that people don't see this glaring conflict of interest. AI companies both produce the model and rent out inference. In other words, you're expecting that the company that (a) desperately crave your data the most and (b) that also happen to collect large amounts of high quality data from you will simply not use it. It's like asking a child to keep your candy safe. I'd love to live in a societ…

>It's like asking a child to keep your candy safe

That's why we don't hand billions of dollars to a child. Maybe we should treat AI companies similar.

Post reply on HN