←back to thread

237 points meetpateltech | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.2s | source
Show context
nrhrjrjrjtntbt ◴[] 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. totallymike ◴[] No.45905330[source]
1-5: not a concern

It'll be the lawyers who need to go through the data, and given the scale of it, they won't be able to do anything more than trawl for the evidence they need and find specific examples to cite. They don't give a shit if you're asking chatgpt how to put a hit out on your ex, and they're not there to editorialize.

I wont pretend to guess* how they'll perform the discovery, but I highly doubt it will result in humans reading more than a handful of the records in total outside of the ones found via whatever method they automate the discovery process.

If there's top secret information in there, and it was somehow stumbled upon by one of these lawyers or a paralegal somewhere, I find it impossibly unlikely they'd be stupid enough to do anything other than run directly to whomever is the rightful possessor of said information and say "hey we found this in this place it shouldn't be" and then let them deal with it. Which is what we'd want them to do.

*Though if I had to speculate on how they'd do it, I do think the funniest way would be to feed the records back into chatgpt and ask it to point out all the times the records show evidence of infringement