When people ask LLMs about themselves, you known they either don't have a clue about how they work and what they can do (ignorance), or they're fishing for clickbait content by "leading the witness" (intellectual dishonesty, bad faith).
Why won’t Google give an answer on whether Bard was trained on Gmail data?
61–70 of 74 posts
Re: Why won’t Google give an answer on whether Bard was trained on Gmail data?
#62Re: Why won’t Google give an answer on whether Bard was trained on Gmail data?
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who wrote that reply? A Googler? Is there a screenshot? This would be a gigantic GDPR lawsuit. This reminds me of not communicating with Gmail users. Gmail has been evil forever since "personalized" ads.
> This would be a gigantic GDPR lawsuit. No. They are not available in the EU. At least, I assume this is how Google thinks about it.
It doesn't matter, and Google knows it.
Re: Why won’t Google give an answer on whether Bard was trained on Gmail data?
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the moment, for some reason Google seems almost untouchable. I mean, single handedly destroying the browser market by deceit and abuse of market position in broad daylight, you'd think sooner or later EU or someone would force them to pay and put up a browser ballot on Google.com, but so far, no. Luckily the French consumer protection agency has at least forced them to implement the cookie question thing almost so…
> single handedly destroying the browser market by deceit and abuse of market position in broad daylight It's not single handedly, it's every developer handedly. First thing any dev does is install Chrome, and make their normal friends install Chrome, even when -- for example -- it destroys the battery life on their Macbook while breaking a variety of usability conveniences. When pressed, it turns out most of this is…
> First thing any dev
Maybe frontend devs. For me FF is invaluable, especially the containers.
Re: Why won’t Google give an answer on whether Bard was trained on Gmail data?
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using the present tense to answer a past-tense question is hardly unambiguous. "Did you send an email to Fred?" -- "No, I'm not sending an email to Fred" doesn't answer the question. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to have realized that big corps have teams of people to frame their public statements with carefully chosen words to present issues in the best light for them, even if it's deeply misleading.
> "Did you send an email to Fred?" -- "No, I'm not sending an email to Fred" To me this unambiguously says both that I did not send an email to him and I don't intend to. Is it really ambiguous to you?
It depends if you are a person or a corporation. If the former, I assume you haven't. If the latter, I assume you did but don't want it to sound bad.
Re: Why won’t Google give an answer on whether Bard was trained on Gmail data?
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who wrote that reply? A Googler? Is there a screenshot? This would be a gigantic GDPR lawsuit. This reminds me of not communicating with Gmail users. Gmail has been evil forever since "personalized" ads.
> This would be a gigantic GDPR lawsuit. No. They are not available in the EU. At least, I assume this is how Google thinks about it.
I believe the point is that Google leaks data collected through a service available in the EU (Gmail). The GDPR claim would be related to gmail, not bard.
If anything, bard not being available in the EU would prove that using the data wasn't necessary for EU's gmail service.
Re: Why won’t Google give an answer on whether Bard was trained on Gmail data?
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using the present tense to answer a past-tense question is hardly unambiguous. "Did you send an email to Fred?" -- "No, I'm not sending an email to Fred" doesn't answer the question. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to have realized that big corps have teams of people to frame their public statements with carefully chosen words to present issues in the best light for them, even if it's deeply misleading.
> "Did you send an email to Fred?" -- "No, I'm not sending an email to Fred" To me this unambiguously says both that I did not send an email to him and I don't intend to. Is it really ambiguous to you?
If you said that, maybe.
If a corporate PR expert or a politician said that, the conclusion would be very different.
Re: Why won’t Google give an answer on whether Bard was trained on Gmail data?
#68The discussion here is not if it was trained or not in Gmail data, but on personal Gmail data. And that the definition of personal is vague and subject to interpretations. They can say it was not trained on Gmail data because it was trained with Google’s Smart Compose, which it was trained on Gmail data. Gmail Data -> Google’s Smart Compose -> Bard It all depends on where you draw the line to stop reporting. Language…
I'd be shocked if they came anywhere near email data for Bard training. Why do they need that with all the reputational baggage that comes with it, they have only, like, the rest of the Internet at their disposal?
Clean data. A bunch of data points that are in a good enough state / structured to just throw into the training / eval makes a bigger difference than a bazillion messy data points.
I can easily imagine people in charge with the mentality of "there's no way that anyone can prove we did it."
It's very improbable, but looking at the "AI integration / product" race it is still a non-zero chance it could have happened.
Re: Why won’t Google give an answer on whether Bard was trained on Gmail data?
#69We already know the likely answer to this. They didn't make it terribly evident to Google Voice (Former Grand Central) users that their data was being utilized to train their transcription models for visual voicemail and the like. Google has long since strayed from their do not evil model.
People would be wise to de-Googlify their digital presence as best they can.
The new Gmail ads are atrocious too, IMHO. Peppering ads that "appear" as emails into my Gmail feed seems over the top. I'd rather pay $6/mo, and do, for a single-user Microsoft 365 tenant, which nets me 1TB of cloud storage, in addition to 50 GB of email. I trust Microsoft more than I do Google at this stage.
Re: Why won’t Google give an answer on whether Bard was trained on Gmail data?
#70The article directly quotes google giving a clear answer…. “Google replied to the tweet directly, saying, “Bard is an early experiment based on Large Language Models and will make mistakes. It is not trained on Gmail data. -JQ”.
Elsewhere in this thread we noted how peculiar legal language can be. 1. "is" versus "was" 2. This tweet is from Google Workspace. It might pertain to Google Workspace gmail only and say nothing about public gmail.
Good making the distinction between the two.
Google has been very explicit that they will not analyze emails of Google Workspace subscribes for ad targeting, but says little about how in-depth they analyze for Gmail users.