←back to thread

Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

(openai.com)
195 points meetpateltech | 1 comments | 12 Nov 25 14:08 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nrhrjrjrjtntbt ◴[12 Nov 25 14:59 UTC] No.45901046[source]▶
Open AI deservedly getting a beating in this HN comments section but any comments about NYT overreach and what it means in general?

And what if they for example find evidence of X other thing such as:

1. Something useful for a story, maybe they follow up in parallel. Know who to interview and what to ask?

2. A crime.

3. An ongoing crime.

4. Something else they can sue someone else for.

5. Top secret information

replies(3): >>45901201 #>>45902067 #>>45905330 #
1. AlienRobot ◴[12 Nov 25 16:23 UTC] No.45902067[source]▶
1. That sounds useful.

2. That sounds useful.

3. That sounds useful.

4. That sounds useful.

5. That sounds useful.

Are these supposed to be examples of things that shouldn't be found out about? This has to be the worst pro-privacy argument I've ever seen on the internet. "Privacy is good because they will find out about our crimes"