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

Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 441 posts

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#401

Post by [deleted] »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #224
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NB. There is no order to "collect". The order is to preserve what is already being collected and stored in the ordinary course of business https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.6... https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.6...

Why does OpenAI collect and retain for 30 days^1 chats that the user wants to be deleted It was doing this prior to being sued by the NYT and many others OpenAI was collecting chats even when the user asked for deletion, i.e., the user did not want them saved That's why a lawsuit could require OpenAi to issue a hold order, retain these chats for longer and produce them to another party in discovery If OpenAI was not…

[deleted]

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#402

Post by HPsquared »

secalex wrote: post #338
HPsquared wrote: post #51

Can this legal principle be used on Gmail too?

Gmail is an Electronic Communication Service as defined in 18 U.S.C § 2510, meaning its contents are protected under the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. Chapter 121 §§ 2701–2713). Communications with an AI system do not involve a human so are not protected by ECPA or the SCA and get less protection. This is controversial and some people have called on ECPA/SCA to be extended to cover AI services. That means a wa…

In a way it's like someone talking to themselves in the bathroom mirror. It's almost a higher privacy expectation than regular emails. You expect no human to see it at all.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#403

Post by freejazz »

terminalshort wrote: post #383
freejazz wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn, you'd think OpenAI would have made this argument! Maybe there's something you're missing if this didn't save the day for them.

No I wouldn't since this is discovery. Maybe there's something you're missing here.

Primarily you seem to be missing the fact that the NYT case is about outputs, not just the training.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#404

Post by freejazz »

terminalshort wrote: post #382
freejazz wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI is not allowed to reproduce the NYT's articles, that's copyright infringement. It does not really matter if it is a practical thing or not, that would only go to damages, not liability.

What do you think it is you are liable for?

I'm confused. I don't think I'm liable for anything. I am not OpenAI.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#405

Post by subscribed »

N-Krause wrote: post #325
godelski wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could definitely do this E2EE. Models should run in ephemeral containers where data is only processed in RAM. For active conversation a unique and temporary key-pair is generated. Saved chats are encrypted client side and stored encrypted server side. To resume a conversation[0], decrypt client side, establish connection to container, generate new temporary key-pair, and so on. There's more details and nuances bu…

You cannot compare these examples. There is currently no way to encrypt the user message and have the model on the server read/process the message without it being decrypted first. Mullvad and E2EE Messengers do not need to process the contents of the message on their server. All they do is, passing it to another computer. It could be scrambled binary for all they care. But any AI company _has_ to read the content of…

It's a solved problem. Lumo.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#406

Post by scotty79 »

cestith wrote: post #358
scotty79 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open means open. Plenty of people make money in the open culture in way less obnoxious ways than NYT. What NYT does is crapping at the place where I am, but building a wall and charging for passage to a place that does stink little bit less. I don't mind them having such place, or even charging for access. What I mind is making mine actively worse. Do whatever you want and charge however much you want. But for the lo…

That sounds like a feature request to Google, not an indictment of the NYT.

Same way that a feature request to the police is not an indictment of the criminals.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#407

Post by scotty79 »

reaperducer wrote: post #399
scotty79 wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote myself an extension to bypass all youtube adverts and used it for years. I'm perfectly capable of evading NYT garbage once the fury exceeds the lazyness. Still the issue remains. I'm not the only one bothered by paywalled links in search results, being linked from websites and suggested in feeds of mobile apps. Checkbox to filter them out was requested long time ago. Never implemented.

Still the issue remains. No, it doesn't. The issue isn't the Times, since you've admitted that you have a way to avoid them, and other people have suggested solutions. The actual issue is that you enjoy being angry and expressing that anger in front of strangers on the internet, as if that somehow validates your anger, or makes you feel good, or gives you some other kind of reward for grinding your personal axe. This…

Sure, that too. I just like fierce discussions about irrelevant, unchangeable things and they are easiest to find in the company of people with bland, mainstream opinions. Somehow they always try to defend them vehemently.

I have plenty of introspection. I know exactly what I am doing and why.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#408

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #81

"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…

"Fighting the New York Times' lawyers' and experts' invasion of user privacy"

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#409

Post by FloorEgg »

close04 wrote: post #319
FloorEgg wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds very plausible.

The problem when dealing with any company that has proven itself untrustworthy is that by default the innocent "plausible" option is probably no longer the "likely" one. And I say this knowing that intentionally deleting data is harder than it looks.

that doesn't sound quite right to me.

Something about game theory, art of war, and the difference between stated intentions and actual intentions.

Trustworthiness comes from alignment of stated intentions, actual intentions, abilities and actions. Someon can have integrity between stated and actual intentions, but fail to follow through. In this case I think we doubt the integrity between openais stated and actual intentions.

So Sam can be saying stuff and then we find out he wasn't being honest. We can learn over time about his intentions by watching actions instead of listening to what he says. Then we can make new assumptions based on what his actual intentions seem like.

Based on what I assume Sam's intentions to be (with some healthy suspicion of the alignment between his stated intentions and actual intentions), I'm still skeptical that the reason for the 30 day thing goes far beyond quality control, the difficulty of balancing deletion and redundancy and the features of the tech stack they are using.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#410

Post by keeda »

freejazz wrote: post #403
terminalshort wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I wouldn't since this is discovery. Maybe there's something you're missing here.

Primarily you seem to be missing the fact that the NYT case is about outputs, not just the training.

Hmm, this is an interesting framing of the lawsuit. If it's about outputs and not just training, are the outputs really orthogonal to the training?

In traditional computer systems, no, outputs are always a function of inputs. LLMs throw a wrench into this reasoning because they apply opaque statistics to a combination of training data and the user prompt to produce outputs, so the input-output relationship is much less clear, but fundamentally it still holds.

So then this case should also be about training. The question then is: did OpenAI intend to have these models be able to regurgitate large amounts of content? Or is it yet another emergent property that nobody anticipated?

I would suspect the latter, because if you view these models as a lossy compression of the whole Internet (cf "Blurry JPEG of the Web" article) it is a surprising outcome that they are able to losslessly reproduce so much of the original content.

So this might come down to intent. Maybe the NYT would need to show that OpenAI intentionally designed for this property, e.g. by rewarding reproductions of entire segments of the original content in its training. In which case, it's looking in the wrong place for evidence.

Post reply on HN