If I was a company with a zero data retention contract involving OAI I would be asking for a third party audit of such claim of zero retention like, yesterday.
replyCould they say they don't retain, but do something "transformative" like use their own AI to summarize and paraphrase user sessions?
replydata collection companies regularly fuzz and mask data and call it a day. the fuzz and the mask quality is debatable.
replyYes, and that’s exactly what I believe they are doing
replyIs there an implication of violation of ZDR here? Not a challenge. Just a request for clarification.
replyto my knowledge the mathematicians did not have ZDR so it would be incorrect to assume OAI violated such a thing.
replyI'm suggesting audits, not suing... if that is the implication.
By the way, the company that made it's entire product off of stealing all data it could get it's hand on while violating copyright and pirating, is not all of a sudden going to respect your data. If you think OpenAI or any major AI lab is going to give you true ZDR, I have a bridge to sell you.
replySo use bedrock or vertex or whatever. Those are the ZDR offerings. Or was it your intention to insinuate that the major cloud providers are conspiring with openai to violate their contractual obligations to their customers?
replyYes. You're naive if you think any of these cloud providers care about your data when they're all in the midst of a AI revolution psychosis. They dont care about their reputation or what you think of them, they think they're going to have a machine god their side.
replyIf my company finds any evidence of OpenAI violating ZDR, we'll sue for breach of contract and fraud, and collect damages. I think we'll be able to afford the bridge you're selling. You've got the title and title insurance, right?
replySure you will little bro. You signed away your right to arbitration a long time ago.
replyYou realize OpenAI hired Apple employees and covertly had them stay working at Apple to steal from them. You think they're scared of your lawyers lol?
It can still be academic plagiarism even if they ticked the box to allow training on their prompts.
replyThe idea OpenAI or Anthropic won't train on your data—even with an enterprise contract—is a fantasy at best, and dilusion at worst.
replyThis is how every conspiracy theorist thinks: my enemy is Bad, and if they did a Bad thing, it would be Good for them, therefore they obviously did it. No evidence needed other than "motive" + my enemy is evil. But even if your enemy is evil, in this case, they would be fools to take the legal risk of violating their contract for the minimal upside of a tiny bit more training data (and fools to assume this would not be exposed in a large organization). So you need to assume your enemy is both evil and remarkably stupid.
replyI think it’s probably not surprising that they would go up to the contractual limit or into a grey area; but exceeding that would require too much coordination among individuals, as you say.
reply[dead]
reply[flagged]
replyNo, people who believe things without evidence because it fits their personal narrative are consiracy theorists.
replyThe thing that makes someone not a conspiracy theorist is evidence.
Their own claim is that they wanted Buckmaster without Alpöge to lead a rewrite of OpenAI's Navier-Stokes work, not of Alpöge-Buckmaster's Euler work.
replyNo one can know if that's correct without proof but I don't know how you're reading it so differently.
They want Buckmaster to dissociate with Alpöge in a follow-up rewrite of OpenAI's work. (They only publicly admit “Buckmaster as the lead author”, but judging from Buckmaster’s statement, it’s pretty clear that don’t want Alpöge at all.)
replyJust suggesting to a mathematician to dissociate with their collaborator for a follow-up work, because their collaborator “is inappropriate to author OpenAI’s work”, is completely against the norm of mathematical research. As charm137 puts it in a comment below:
> This is like a researcher from CMU saying to an NYU researcher that their collaborator, being from MIT, is a problem - this is as ridiculous as that!
deleted
reply> We did not rush to publish even though the other team wasn't communicating with us.
replyPretty clear this was rushed: there are no comments from external mathematicians, unlike the Erdős announcement:
https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-c...
They are missing a great marketing stunt: "Our models are so good that our competitors are using it for leading research".
replyKinda weird because the pure math world doesn't have this concept of "lead authors" like other STEM areas do. Authors are alphabetically listed and there isn't generally this kind of hierarchy.
replyFrom what I understand they aren't comfortable with the Anthropic employee being an author at all, not just lead author.
replyIt works in niche fields where everyone knows each other and every discussion involves who did what portion of the work for a result.
reply