Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

(openai.com)

237 points meetpateltech | 1 comments | 12 Nov 25 14:08 UTC | HN request time: 0.243s | source

Show context

1vuio0pswjnm7 ◴[12 Nov 25 16:11 UTC] No.45901917[source]▶

>>45900370 (OP) #

"The New York Times is demanding that we turn over 20 million of your private ChatGPT conversations."

As might any plaintiff. NYT might be the first of many others and the lawsuits may not be limited to copyright claims

Why has OpenAI collected and stored 20 million conversations (including "deleted chats")

What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations

By contrast the purpose of NYT's request is both clear and limited

The documents requested are not being made public by the plaintiffs. The documents will presumably be redacted to protect any confidential information before being produced to the plaintiffs, the documents can only be used by the plaintiffs for the purpose of the litigation against OpenAI and, unlike OpenAI who has collected and stored these conversations for as long as OpenAI desires, the plaintiffs are prohibited from retaining copies of the documents after the litigation is concluded

The privacy issue here has been created by OpenAI for their own commercial benefit

It is not even clear what this benefit, if any, will be as OpenAI continues to search for a "business model"

Wanton data collection

replies(8): >>45902173 #>>45902539 #>>45903180 #>>45903873 #>>45904258 #>>45904285 #>>45905079 #>>45906333 #

1vuio0pswjnm7 ◴[12 Nov 25 17:45 UTC] No.45903180[source]▶

>>45901917 #

NB. There is no order to "collect". The order is to preserve what is already being collected and stored in the ordinary course of business

https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.6...

replies(4): >>45904188 #>>45904261 #>>45906810 #>>45907377 #

1. Aurornis ◴[12 Nov 25 18:52 UTC] No.45904261[source]▶

>>45903180 #

The two documents you linked are responses to specific parts of OpenAI's objection. They're not good sources for the original order.

Nevertheless, you're generally correct but you don't realize why: A core feature of ChatGPT is that it keeps your conversation history right there so you can click on it, review it, and continue conversations across all of your devices. The court order is to preserve what is already present in the system even if the user asks to delete it.

For those who are confused: A core feature of ChatGPT and other LLM accounts is that your past conversations are available to return to, until you specifically delete them. The problem now is that if a user asks for the conversation to be deleted, OpenAI has to retain the conversation for the court order even though it appears deleted.

↑