All the bad news seem to drop on Friday. Is it just a coincidence?
Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
501–510 of 551 posts
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#502All the bad news seem to drop on Friday. Is it just a coincidence?
No, it's a very deliberate strategy. Companies do this every Friday
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#503You 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.
The 5 year is the real kicker. Over the next 5 years I find it doubtful that they won't keep modifying their TOS and presenting that opt out 'option' so that all it will take is one accidental click and they have all your data from the start. Also, what is to stop them from removing the opt out? Nothing says they have to give that option. 4 years and 364 days from now TOS change with no opt out and a retention increase to 10 years. By then the privacy decline will have already have been so huge nobody will even notice that this 'option' was never even real.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's nice to see the newer models are suffering after being exposed to training on their own slop. I've seen zero evidence anything of the such is occurring, and that if it was, it's due to what you claim. I'd be highly interested in research suggesting both or either is occurring however.
"AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41058194
That's not what I asked for as it's not relevant.
The claim was made that the models are "suffering", at this exact moment, because they have been recursively feeding themselves, RIGHT now.
I want evidence the current models are "suffering" right now, and I want further evidence that suggests this suffering is due to recursive data ingestion.
Some year old article with no relevance to today talking about hypotheticals of indiscriminate gorging of recursive data is not evidence of either of the things I asked for.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that was my point.
And here it is, evolving before your eyes: we're killing off the maladaptive mutant which was "opt-in by default". That's the evolution that is happening here.
That would not be evolution, that would be an attempt at creationism. There is no evolution police, and never will be.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original meaning of sane is "physically healthy". Its usual modern meaning is "mentally healthy". You're using it to mean "reasonable". At which exact point is language prohibited from evolving, and why it super coincidentally the exact years you learnt it?
Diluting the distinction between opt-in and opt-out is gaslighting, not "evolution."
That seems like an ungenerous and frankly somewhat hysterical take.
By default, you are opted in. Perfectly clear.
The purpose of language is communication, not validating your politics.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
And here it is, evolving before your eyes: we're killing off the maladaptive mutant which was "opt-in by default". That's the evolution that is happening here.
That would not be evolution, that would be an attempt at creationism. There is no evolution police, and never will be.
Selection pressure is the evolution police.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#508Can users poison the future training dataset by ending every chat with a dissatisfied feedback even though the chat helped them? Or be even more malicious and steer the chat into destructive behavior and then give very positive feedback?
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I'd have more understanding for this position if I thought that these companies were still fundamentally interested in serving their users. They are not. Any information you provide is more likely to be used against your interests (even if that's "just" targeting you with some ads for a scammy product) than for your benefit. Basically all AI companies are fruit from the same VC-poisoned tree and I expect thes…
Whether Google is interested in serving me or not, is not only untestable (i.e. what counts as 'Google', 'interested', and 'serving' there - one could argue to end of time) - but besides the point. I want to be able to tell Google "My home is XYZ", and for Google to use that information about me in all of Google ecosystem. When I talk to Gemini it should know what/where "LJ home" is, when I write in Gdoc it should kn…
You started by saying that it's difficult or impossible to define what 'serving the user' looks like, then immediately gave examples of what it would look like to you. It's not that Google can't do these things or is afraid to, but rather that operating in your best interests does not benefit their shareholders. Sure, it'd be great if we could all just get along, but we're living in the worst case scenario you describe because we can't all just get along. Not trusting companies like Google with your personal data is the pragmatic choice; regardless of what they could do with our data, what they actually do with it is what counts.
Side note: they know exactly where you live. My colleague's Android used to tell him, without any prompting or specific configuration, how long his drive home from work would take that day. That was over ten years ago.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#510Claude 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 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.
> Why should LLMs be any different?
Because they're a computer program and not a human and humans are special.
Why are humans special? Because we're humans and we make the rules.
Its as inane as saying "why can I eat a burger but I can't chop up my friend and eat him? Why is that any different?"