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

511–520 of 551 posts

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#511

Post by soraminazuki »

troad wrote: post #506
soraminazuki wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> By default, you are opted in. Perfectly clear.

That's called opt-out. You're doing exactly what I described: gaslighting people into believing that opt-in and opt-out are synonymous, rendering the entire concept meaningless. The audacity of you labeling people as "political" while resorting to such Orwellian manipulation is astounding. How can you lecture others about the purpose of languages with a straight face when you're redefining terms to make it impossible for people to express a concept?

These are examples of what "opt-in by default" actually means. It means having the user manually consent to something every time, the polar opposite your definition.

- https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/06/report-new-apple-int...

- https://github.com/rom1504/img2dataset/issues/293

It's also just pure laziness to label me as "hysterical" when PR departments of companies like Google have, like you, misused the terms opt-out and opt-in in deceptive ways.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37314981

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#512

Post by const_cast »

behnamoh wrote: post #346
KoolKat23 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This data is useful for reinforcement learning. All the others do it. And most importantly, you can just opt-out.

Just because all the others do it doesn’t make it right. Many users chose Anthropic exactly because they were not like the others.

> Many users chose Anthropic exactly because they were not like the others.

Companies are less like people and more like bacteria. They are programmatic, like algorithms.

What they will do has already been decided for them, programmed into them, by the rules of capitalism. It is inevitable. There are no good guys, and there are no bad guys, there's just... microbes.

Those who do not engage in capitalism, perhaps they do not seek money at all, have no such hard limitations. But they are rare, because money is blood.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#513

Post by card_zero »

danparsonson wrote: post #507
troad wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would be fair to compare it to selective breeding, rather than natural selection. The flip side of rejecting usage is promoting neologisms. We can do both things deliberately, I see no rule saying that language is only allowed to evolve naturally. A reasonable criticism would be that trying to change it on purpose makes for a lot of unnecessary fuss, but we can be moderate about it.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#514

Post by homeless_engi »

grim_io wrote: post #396
homeless_engi wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gemini allows you to opt out, but disables chat history if you do so

Can I trouble you to give me a hint where this could be configured? :)

Sure! Here you go:

https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/13594961?&p=privacy...

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#515

Post by gloosx »

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…

>LLM's probably won't get significantly better without this data.

Who told you LLMs will get significantly better with this data? Sam Altman?

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#516

Post by Nevermark »

soraminazuki wrote: post #511
troad wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> By default, you are opted in. Perfectly clear. That's called opt-out. You're doing exactly what I described: gaslighting people into believing that opt-in and opt-out are synonymous, rendering the entire concept meaningless. The audacity of you labeling people as "political" while resorting to such Orwellian manipulation is astounding. How can you lecture others about the purpose of languages with a straight face w…

I completely agree with you from a correctness standpoint, ...

> Diluting the distinction between opt-in and opt-out is gaslighting

> That seems like an ungenerous and frankly somewhat hysterical take.

... however, this comment was a reasonable response.

Projective framing demonstrates your own lack of concern for accuracy, clarity or conviviality, that is 180 degrees at odds with the point you are making and the site you are making it on.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#517

Post by gloosx »

latexr wrote: post #194

So far, no one in this thread seems surprised (or is admitting to it). But I genuinely would like to know if someone is surprised. I’d also like to know what lead you to believe this wouldn’t happen and if there’s anyone in the LLM space you’d trust to not pull the same stunt (and why do you still believe that). I genuinely want to know and would like to have a productive conversation. I would like to identify what m…

There is nothing surprising at all? It's not rocket science to understand that Anthropic is a very greedy company – just by analysing their sales funnel/UX you can tell that money is all they ever care about. Their marketing teams will go for any tricks to gain direct access to your pockets.

In the LLM space no other company is different – they are highly unprofitable – so once funding starts to run dry they will have the pressure to invent new ways for going even deeper into your pockets.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#518

Post by gloosx »

picafrost wrote: post #119

The AI fever dream of unbounded training and inference is ending and reality is settling in. Anthropic has had the most reasonable business model of the AI players with their focus on code, as far as I can tell, but it still won't be enough. There's no such thing as a free lunch, but even when I am a paying customer my data is taken as gratuity and used (+ spread around!) in extremely opaque ways. I am tired of it. H…

>Anthropic has had the most reasonable business model

Is this a joke? Anthropic burned $5.6 billion in 2024 and is expected to lose about $3 billion this year and it's reasonable business model?

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#519

Post by ljosifov »

Gud wrote: post #409
ljosifov wrote: post #350

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. People that want to be data privacy maximalists - fine, don't use their data. But there are people out there (myself) that are on the opposite end of the spectrum, and we are mostly ignored by the companies. Companies just assume people only ever w…

Have you considered the drawbacks of sharing your data to the most unscrupulous people on this planet?

I already share lots of my data with Google. I have Gmail where a lot of my online life is reflected. I have Photos, Gmaps, Gdrive. Also Google knows about my YouTube viewing, my Android phone use. So no matter what I say - with my actions, my revealed preference is - that I trust Google. So far - Google have not betrayed my trust, afaics. So I actually want for Google to adapt Gemini to me, either via the context, or even with a thin layer of LoRA. If Google treats me like a complete stranger it knows nothing about, then Google, and plenty of other people, make use of my data, but I, the creator (and nominal owner) of my data - don't benefit from their knowledge of me?? That sounds the worst of the possible options to me.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#520

Post by ljosifov »

soraminazuki wrote: post #436
ljosifov wrote: post #350

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. People that want to be data privacy maximalists - fine, don't use their data. But there are people out there (myself) that are on the opposite end of the spectrum, and we are mostly ignored by the companies. Companies just assume people only ever w…

You can train commercial AI with your data right now without screwing over everyone else on the planet. It's easy, just publish your entire trove of personal data on a website and AI crawlers will happily gobble it all up. You can publish your name, home address, work, government-issued ID, financial transactions, chats, browser history, location history, surveillance footage of your home, all for free. So what are y…

I'm not 'screwing' anyone. I'm saying - the same way people don't want to have their data used, I DO want my data used. I'm not saying they use YOUR data. I'm saying they use MY data.

Likewise, I'm not telling you what you publish. In the same manner, I dislike it you telling me that I publish. So on

> name, home address, work, government-issued ID, financial transactions, chats, browser history, location history, surveillance footage of your home, all for free.

It's up to me, not you, what I decided to publish or not. Fwiw, I already publish

> name, home address, work,

willingly. My name is public (how can it be otherwise?) and home address is in the electoral register that is public. My work info is in the UK companies register, available for reading to all, on the web

I publish to selected parties

> government-issued ID

even if I don't want it. (we don't have specific 'government-issued ID' for ID purposes like in the Continent; my driving licence is used for that) I did it yesterday, because UK gov requires companies to collect that information. Yesterday I had to give two photos of myself to an online pharmacy shop because UK gov mandates that they collect that info - and I disliked that very much. The online pharmacy is not the one pushing for that data, its the UK gov forcing that one them via regulation of how that particular medication is to be sold online.

I don't want to publish and don't publish

> financial transactions, chats, browser history, location history, surveillance footage of your home

...and don't understand where this gale to tell perfect strangers what they should do with their lives comes from?? I don't tell you what you should or should not publish? Ditto for the pricing

> all for free.

Up to me to decide. I don't tell you what you do - so you don't tell me what I do, pretty please.

I am not waiting on "privacy maximalists." I try to share my data for some purpose I need. I loathe 'privacy maximalist' in the UK for having influenced the current laws of the land in a way to cater for their obsessions and ignore my desires. I think I'm in majority, not minority. Our current predicament seems to me the case of "public lies, private truths." A small cadre of vocal proponents of a particular view, established "the ground truth to what is desirable". (in this case - maximum privacy, ideally zero information sharing) The public goes with it in words, pays lip service, while in deeds, the revealed preferences show that we value our data privacy very little - almost zero. Even one click extra to share our data less, is one click too many, an effort too high for most people. Again - these are revealed preferences, for people keep lying when asked. It's not even the case of "you are lying to me" - no, it's more like "you are lying to yourself."

Post reply on HN