←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: 0.211s | source
Show context
vintagedave ◴[12 Nov 25 14:59 UTC] No.45901054[source]▶
Almost every comment (five) so far is against this: 'An incredibly cynical attempt at spin', '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', etc.

In direct contrast: I fully agree with OpenAI here. We can have a more nuanced opinion than 'piracy to train AI is bad therefore refusing to share chats is bad', which sounds absurd but is genuinely how one of the other comments follows logic.

Privacy is paramount. People _trust_ that their chats are private: they ask sensitive questions, ones to do with intensely personal or private or confidential things. For that to be broken -- for a company to force users to have their private data accessed -- is vile.

The tech community has largely stood against this kind of thing when it's been invasive scanning of private messages, tracking user data, etc. I hope we can collectively be better (I'm using ethical terms for a reason) than the other replies show. We don't have to support OpenAI's actions in order to oppose the NYT's actions.

replies(3): >>45901188 #>>45901816 #>>45903739 #
1. wkat4242 ◴[12 Nov 25 18:20 UTC] No.45903739[source]▶
> In direct contrast: I fully agree with OpenAI here. We can have a more nuanced opinion than 'piracy to train AI is bad therefore refusing to share chats is bad', which sounds absurd but is genuinely how one of the other comments follows logic.

These chats only need to be shared because:

- OpenAI pirated masses of content in the first place

- OpenAI refuse to own up to it even now (they spin the NYT claims as "baseless").

I don't agree with them giving my chats out either, but the blame is not with the NYT in my opinion.

> We don't have to support OpenAI's actions in order to oppose the NYT's actions.

Well the NYT action is more than just its own. It will set a precedent if they win which means other news outlets can get money from OpenAI as well. Which makes a lot of sense, after all they have billions to invest in hardware, why not in content??

And what alternative do they have? Without OpenAI giving access to the source materials used (I assume this was already asked for because it is the most obvious route) there is not much else they can do. And OpenAI won't do that because it will prove the NYT point and will cause them to have to pay a lot to half the world.

It's important that this case is made, not just for the NYT but for journalism in general.