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

461–470 of 551 posts

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#461

Post by dns_snek »

dmbche wrote: post #443
dns_snek wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you talk to a human they're free to discuss your ideas with someone else. Why should LLMs be any different? The likelihood of these models reproducing your ideas word for word is essentially zero anyway. More to the point, respecting your wishes to keep those conversations confidential would risk stifling human progress, so they have to be disregarded for the greater good.

Love to see people being directly and fully against the concept of "confidentiality"

Not in the slightest! The only thing I'm against is hypocrisy.

LLM enthusiasts are staunch defenders of the argument that use of everyone's ideas and labour in LLM training isn't just fair use, but a moral imperative in order to advance science, art, and human progress as a whole.

It's beyond hypocritical for beneficiaries of this paradigm to then turn around and expect special treatment by demanding that "their" ideas, "their" knowledge, "their" labour be excluded from this process.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#462

Post by lacoolj »

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…

Proprietary data (your company's app repository, a script for upcoming movie) and sensitive data (health, finance) become exposed

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#464

Post by dmbche »

dns_snek wrote: post #461
dmbche wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love to see people being directly and fully against the concept of "confidentiality"

Not in the slightest! The only thing I'm against is hypocrisy. LLM enthusiasts are staunch defenders of the argument that use of everyone's ideas and labour in LLM training isn't just fair use, but a moral imperative in order to advance science, art, and human progress as a whole. It's beyond hypocritical for beneficiaries of this paradigm to then turn around and expect special treatment by demanding that "their" ide…

Gotcha - right with you. Gotta get my sarcasm detector checked.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#465

Post by nocommandline »

episteme wrote: post #38
troad wrote: post #8

You 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.

What will you use instead? I’m finding Claude the best experience since ChatGPT 5 is so slow and not any better answers than 4.

If you aren't using it for coding or advanced uses like video, etc, you can try running models locally on your machine using Ollama and others like it.

Self plug here - If you aren't technical and still want to run models locally, you can try our App [1]

1] https://ai.nocommandline.com

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#466

Post by monsieurbanana »

Deegy wrote: post #331
monsieurbanana wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I believe I addressed that in my third paragraph? It does suck that there are only a few companies with enough resources to offer these models. But it's hard to escape the power laws. I'm hoping that costs come down to the point where these things are basically a commodity with thousands of providers.

Save your prompts, anonymize them and offer them to anyone that wants to train a LLM, that is us collectively training LLMs.

Giving Claude your private data ensures that there will not be thousands of providers, since the limiting factor isn't power but data.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#467

Post by ljosifov »

soiltype wrote: post #389
londons_explore wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would far prefer the service use my data to work better and take a few privacy risks. People die all the time from cancer or car accidents. People very rarely die from data leaks. Some countries like Sweden make people's private financial data public information - and yet their people seem happier than ever. Perhaps privacy isn't as important as we think for a good society.

public/private isn't a binary, it's a spectrum. we Americans mostly sit in the shithole middle ground where our data is widely disseminated among private, for-profit actors, for the explicit purpose of being used to manipulate us, but it's mostly not available to us, creating an assymmetric power balance.

I agree with your stance there. Further - the conventional opinion is that the power imbalance coming from the information imbalance (state/business know a lot about me; I know little about them) is that us citizens and consumers should reduce our "information surface" towards them. And address the imbalance that way. But.

There exists another, often unmentioned option. And that option is for state/business to open up, to increase their "information surface" towards us, their citizens/consumers. That will also achieve information (and one hopes power) rebalance. Every time it's actually measured, how much value we put on our privacy, when we have to weight privacy against convenience and other gains from more data sharing, the revealed preference is close to zero. The revealed preference is that we put the value of our privacy close to zero, despite us forever saying otherwise. (that we value privacy very very much; seems - "it ain't so")

So the option of state/business revealing more data to us citizens/consumers, is actually more realistic. Yes there is extra work on part of state/business to open their data to us. But it's worth it. The more advanced the society, the more coordination it needs to achieve the right cooperation-competition balance in the interactions between ever greater numbers of people.

There is an old book "Data For the People" by an early AI pioneer and Amazon CTO Andreas Weigend. Afaics it well describes the world we live in, and also are likely to live even more in the future.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#468

Post by 12ian34 »

ljosifov wrote: post #434
12ian34 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are projecting sociopathy on those that choose to keep their lives more private than you? Like you said, basic personal details are essentially public knowledge anyway. Where do you draw the line personally on what should be private?

Not at all, on the contrary, I chose my words carefully ("mildly sociopathic OF ME") as to avoid casting shade on others. Saying "this is how I feel", so to preclude judging others. Everyone makes their own choices, and that's fine. Boundaries - yes sure they exist. I don't have my photo albums open to the world. I don't share info about family and friends - I know people by default don't want to share information ab…

Thanks for this considered response. I find it difficult to disagree with anything you said in this particular comment :) however I do think each instance you mention in this message is quite different to the topic at hand, regarding the big tech data machine. Additionally, I think I would rather our UK level of privacy regarding healthcare data than the commercialised free for all in the US. One counterpoint could be that Palantir got a significant amount of UK NHS data.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#469

Post by darepublic »

troad wrote: post #8

You 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.

it's almost like this multi billion dollar company is misanthropic, despite their platitudes. Should I not hold my breath on Anthropic helping facilitate "an era of AI abundance for all"? (To quote a rejected PR applicant to Anthropic from the front page)

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#470

Post by SoftTalker »

const_cast wrote: post #454
SoftTalker wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Yes, because race is a protected class. No: because Uber doesn't have to tell you how their model works and they probably don't even know.

Doesn't matter. If you can convincingly argue that the effect is discrimination based on race, you have a civil rights claim.
Post reply on HN