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

491–500 of 551 posts

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#491

Post by sigmoid10 »

mrcwinn wrote: post #172
sigmoid10 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is far more money to be made building atop this data than selling this data. Your opening statement seems to disagree with your closing statement.

All of this boils down to selling to advertisers. There is no real difference between doing it yourself or having someone else in the chain. Doing it yourself may be more profitable - if you can scale. But that seems to be off the table here.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#492

Post by sigmoid10 »

Romario77 wrote: post #321
sigmoid10 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, t…

30% of ~4% is very little when you think about these valuations.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#493

Post by sigmoid10 »

conradev wrote: post #168
sigmoid10 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s worth noting that companies at this scale are usually the ones purchasing user data, not selling it.

Only if they are in the ad selling business.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#494

Post by DrillShopper »

demarq wrote: post #421
DrillShopper wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should be marked by default as non-trainable and you should have to opt each individual chat in as you see fit. The cognitive load to remember to opt out every new chat should not rest on the user.

What will any provider get out of running free inference then?

Compliance with the law and therefore the ability to operate at all

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#495

Post by ljosifov »

soraminazuki wrote: post #490
ljosifov wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see reading comprehension is not something you enjoy to indulge with. These - > utter fantasies like "'no one wants to share their data' is just assumed" or "the defaults are always 'deny everything'" true? ...far from being fantasies, are my personal experiences in the UK medical systems. This - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45066321

See, this is what I meant by indoctrination. I showed you links containing dozens, maybe even hundreds of examples showing how companies don't obtain consent from users. But you ignore all that and cherry pick your highly exaggerated spin on the UK medical system. "I'm reasonably sure some people will have died because of this." Sigh , give me a break. Your take on privacy sounds just like the auto industry's take on…

I know indoctrination well. Reading what you write - I get the impression that you don't know much about indoctrination. But I don't know you, so I allow it that I maybe wrong. You asked "in what universe". I showed you concrete examples in one universe. For my claim to be true, one example suffices. None of your claims (latest "demolish customer protection") about my alleged intentions, character, thoughts, etc - have any basis in reality. You are wrong in almost everything that you wrote about me. It's all in your head, in your imagination. How do I know? B/c I know me, and you don't know me. That easy.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#496

Post by soraminazuki »

ljosifov wrote: post #495
soraminazuki wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, this is what I meant by indoctrination. I showed you links containing dozens, maybe even hundreds of examples showing how companies don't obtain consent from users. But you ignore all that and cherry pick your highly exaggerated spin on the UK medical system. "I'm reasonably sure some people will have died because of this." Sigh , give me a break. Your take on privacy sounds just like the auto industry's take on…

I know indoctrination well. Reading what you write - I get the impression that you don't know much about indoctrination. But I don't know you, so I allow it that I maybe wrong. You asked "in what universe". I showed you concrete examples in one universe. For my claim to be true, one example suffices. None of your claims (latest "demolish customer protection") about my alleged intentions, character, thoughts, etc - ha…

> Excellent. What were they waiting for up to now?? I thought they already trained on my data. I assume they train, even hope that they train, even when they say they don't.

These are your exact words, not my imagination. You very clearly want consumer protection to be gone, because you said so.

> For my claim to be true, one example suffices.

To be clear, your claim is that we live in a world where there's too much privacy protection. So much in fact that you're, gasp, "reasonably sure some people will have died because of this." Nope, a single spin on the UK medical system is nowhere near as sufficient for that absurd claim.

As for your attempted word lawyering about indoctrination? Classic.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#497

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

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…

I'm okay with LLMs not getting better.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#498

Post by nnutter »

This is disappointing. I thought Anthropic was a more privacy and safety focused company and so I had chosen to use Claude Code over their competition. Now they are less privacy focused than Gemini Code, which only does this for the free tier. My work was already providing GitHub Copilot but I was rooting for and supporting Anthropic. Now I'll either just use GitHub Copilot or Gemini Code both of which are still private for paid tiers.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#500

Post by ljosifov »

soraminazuki wrote: post #496
ljosifov wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know indoctrination well. Reading what you write - I get the impression that you don't know much about indoctrination. But I don't know you, so I allow it that I maybe wrong. You asked "in what universe". I showed you concrete examples in one universe. For my claim to be true, one example suffices. None of your claims (latest "demolish customer protection") about my alleged intentions, character, thoughts, etc - ha…

> Excellent. What were they waiting for up to now?? I thought they already trained on my data. I assume they train, even hope that they train, even when they say they don't. These are your exact words, not my imagination. You very clearly want consumer protection to be gone, because you said so . > For my claim to be true, one example suffices. To be clear, your claim is that we live in a world where there's too much…

Yes - my data, not your data. You stay away from my data. I stay away from your data. I don't care about your data. But I do want them to train on my data. And to serve me better. Was disappointed that they didn't do that already.

But now you gave me ideas. ;-) Yeah - I think ideally we should go further, much further. Internet was not built by po-faced, lemon-sucking prudes, tut-tut-ing about everything and anything. It was built by happy-go-lucky, live-and-let live, altruistic mildly autistic nerds. It was permission-less, one didn't need to ask anyone in order to do anything, and that's why it lived. Whereas many other networks and protocols, technically more sophisticated, but with a fatal flaw that a gatekeeper with the power to say "NO" was built into them - just died off. Wish people went back to the original permission-less Net. That people tore down all manner of laws making moving bits around illegal, used to jail humans for crimes of reading, copying and writing data.

Post reply on HN