For those only consuming the title. yes, no duh humans have access to your conversations and read them.
The lawsuit is targeting a gap in the privacy policy that doesn't explicitly call out contracting out data-labeling and model-training tasks to 3rd parties.
As far as I can tell there would be no lawsuit here if they were using OpenAI employees to do the evaluations instead of contracted labor. seems the entire suit is hinging on this single gap:
> the Privacy Policy lists eleven kinds of outside companies that receive users’ personal data. They include hosting, payments, customer service, analytics and identity verification. None is a data-labeling, annotation or human-evaluation vendor.
I would imagine this is covered by the terms and conditions, lawsuit will likely succeed, but should fail.
What we need is a browser plugin that summarizes terms and conditions of any website and highlights the most egregious parts before any connections actually go to said website.
Genuine question for people in the space, are the no training and zero data retention agreements likely legitimate or not worth the pixels they're displayed on? I'd assumed the first party ones were worthless, but are the ones for serving proprietary models via AWS, GCP, or Azure more reputable? I don't know the shape of deployments, kinds of access, etc. so I'm curious.
Guess if they read mine the past year, they will definitely know a lot more swear words. I am not surprised though ; isn't humans giving positive feedback etc the best way to train? Even if they say they do not.
"you" and "we" are so very over used here.
In Enterprise services, there are entire companies who take contracts to do "actual work" and the corporate mothership now has the power of the purse, and martini lunches. Meanwhile, aggressive entrepreneurs hire temp workers and outsource to do digital work under the threat of the lash.
Oh - this is just new markets stabilizing, surely the real world will stabilize back to fair contracts, health care, market rate long-term employment for families, and generally the rule of law?
Take a look at the global fishing industry, one of the oldest industries on Earth, and sharing the feature that the work product a) must constantly be renewed b) the work product is fungible. hint- slavery is real and is outsourced today, by brands that you know and trust at the grocery store.
If anyone assumes their AI chats are private, they must be stupid. Of course, all AI companies are going to evaluate chat sessions for improving their models whether it's disclosed in the privacy policy or not. They're investing tonnes of money into this, so your privacy is a negligible problem for them.
Would a regular person be stupid if they believe what OpenAI promises? They may just toggle the privacy promising switches in the settings as per what they advertise. They don't expect things to leak out after that.
> According to the complaint, the Privacy Policy lists eleven kinds of outside companies that receive users’ personal data. They include hosting, payments, customer service, analytics and identity verification. None is a data-labeling, annotation or human-evaluation vendor.
Would a "Regular" person interpret the policy such that the described party was one OpenAi "promised" not to share data with?
We've seen this before - it's called the Eliza effect. People appear emotionally driven to communicate privately with a machine even if they understand logically it's a machine with chat logs that will be read by people.
For those only consuming the title. yes, no duh humans have access to your conversations and read them.
The lawsuit is targeting a gap in the privacy policy that doesn't explicitly call out contracting out data-labeling and model-training tasks to 3rd parties.
As far as I can tell there would be no lawsuit here if they were using OpenAI employees to do the evaluations instead of contracted labor. seems the entire suit is hinging on this single gap:
> the Privacy Policy lists eleven kinds of outside companies that receive users’ personal data. They include hosting, payments, customer service, analytics and identity verification. None is a data-labeling, annotation or human-evaluation vendor.
I would imagine this is covered by the terms and conditions, lawsuit will likely succeed, but should fail.
What we need is a browser plugin that summarizes terms and conditions of any website and highlights the most egregious parts before any connections actually go to said website.
You mean https://tosdr.org/?
Genuine question for people in the space, are the no training and zero data retention agreements likely legitimate or not worth the pixels they're displayed on? I'd assumed the first party ones were worthless, but are the ones for serving proprietary models via AWS, GCP, or Azure more reputable? I don't know the shape of deployments, kinds of access, etc. so I'm curious.
Guess if they read mine the past year, they will definitely know a lot more swear words. I am not surprised though ; isn't humans giving positive feedback etc the best way to train? Even if they say they do not.
Just like what happened to these poor mathematicians, you should never use LLM for any serious business.
"you" and "we" are so very over used here. In Enterprise services, there are entire companies who take contracts to do "actual work" and the corporate mothership now has the power of the purse, and martini lunches. Meanwhile, aggressive entrepreneurs hire temp workers and outsource to do digital work under the threat of the lash.
Oh - this is just new markets stabilizing, surely the real world will stabilize back to fair contracts, health care, market rate long-term employment for families, and generally the rule of law?
Take a look at the global fishing industry, one of the oldest industries on Earth, and sharing the feature that the work product a) must constantly be renewed b) the work product is fungible. hint- slavery is real and is outsourced today, by brands that you know and trust at the grocery store.
Q.E.D.
If anyone assumes their AI chats are private, they must be stupid. Of course, all AI companies are going to evaluate chat sessions for improving their models whether it's disclosed in the privacy policy or not. They're investing tonnes of money into this, so your privacy is a negligible problem for them.
Would a regular person be stupid if they believe what OpenAI promises? They may just toggle the privacy promising switches in the settings as per what they advertise. They don't expect things to leak out after that.
"Promise" is a strong word here.
> According to the complaint, the Privacy Policy lists eleven kinds of outside companies that receive users’ personal data. They include hosting, payments, customer service, analytics and identity verification. None is a data-labeling, annotation or human-evaluation vendor.
Would a "Regular" person interpret the policy such that the described party was one OpenAi "promised" not to share data with?
Promises from strangers that will likely suffer no consequence for violating them?
Some people have forgotten that we are part of nature, red in tooth and claw.
We've seen this before - it's called the Eliza effect. People appear emotionally driven to communicate privately with a machine even if they understand logically it's a machine with chat logs that will be read by people.
https://www.centerconsulting.com/ai-library/stories/eliza-ef...
> Would a regular person be stupid if they believe what OpenAI promises?
100%