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.
Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
341–350 of 551 posts
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#342You can opt out, but the fact that it's opt-in by default and made to look like a simple T/C update prompt leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The five year retention period seems... excessive. I wonder if they've buried anything else objectionable in the new terms. It was the kick in the pants I needed to cancel my subscription.
> opt-in by default Nitpicking: “opt in by default” doesn’t exist, it’s either “opt in”, or “opt out”; this is “opt out”. By definition an “opt out” setting is selected by default.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#344Everyone 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?
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#345Everyone 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?
And - this behavior of Google's has not been penalized, I'm afraid.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#346Everyone 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
#347Not a surprise. All the major players have reached the limits of training on existing data—they’re already training on essentially the whole internet plus a bunch of content they allegedly stole (hence various lawsuits). There haven’t been any major breakthroughs in model architecture from the major players recently and thus they’re now in a battle for more data to train on. They need data, and they want YOUR data, n…
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
> opt-in by default Nitpicking: “opt in by default” doesn’t exist, it’s either “opt in”, or “opt out”; this is “opt out”. By definition an “opt out” setting is selected by default.
This is not nitpicking, this is a sane reaction to someone modifying the meaning of words on the fly.
At which exact point is language prohibited from evolving, and why it super coincidentally the exact years you learnt it?
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#349Everyone 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?
Gmail used to serve ads based on your emails for many years until 2017. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/26/534451513...
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#350It annoys me greatly, that I have no tick box on Google to tell them "go and adapt models I use on my Gmail, Photos, Maps etc." I don't want Google to ever be mistaken where I live - I have told them 100 times already.
This idea that "no one wants to share their data" is just assumed, and permeates everything. Like soft-ball interviews that a popular science communicator did with DeepMind folks working in medicine: every question was prefixed by litany of caveats that were all about 1) assumed aversion of people to sharing their data 2) horrors and disasters that are to befall us should we share the data. I have not suffered any horrors. I'm not aware of any major disasters. I'm aware of major advances in medicine in my lifetime. Ultimately the process does involve controlled data collection and experimentation. Looks a good deal to me tbh. I go out of my way to tick all the NHS boxes too, to "use my data as you see fit". It's an uphill struggle. The defaults are always "deny everything". Tick boxes never go away, there is no master checkbox "use any and all of my data and never ask me again" to tick.