←back to thread

195 points meetpateltech | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jcranmer ◴[] No.45900823[source]
"How dare the New York Times demand access to our vault of everything-we-keep to figure out if we're a bunch of lying asses. We must resist them in the name of user privacy! Signed, the people who have scraped literally everything to incorporate it into the products we make."

OpenAI may be trying to paint themselves as the goody-two-shoes here, but they're not.

replies(1): >>45901340 #
greyman ◴[] No.45901340[source]
But that vault can contain conversation between me and chatgpt, which I willingly did, but with the expectation that only openai has access to it. Why should some lawyer working for NYT have access to it? OpenAI is precisely correct, no matter what other motives could be there.
replies(3): >>45901746 #>>45902899 #>>45906095 #
1. mkipper ◴[] No.45902899[source]
> but with the expectation that only openai has access to it

You can argue about "the expectation" of privacy all you want, but this is completely detached from reality. My assumption is that almost no third parties I share information with have magic immunity that prevents the information from being used in a legal action involving them.

Maybe my doctor? Maybe my lawyer? IANAL but I'm not even confident in those. If I text my friend saying their party last night was great and they're in court later and need to prove their whereabouts that night, I understand that my text is going to be used as evidence. That might be a private conversation, but it's not my data when I send it to someone else and give them permission to store it forever.