upvote
Given OpenAI's well documented history of unethical behaviour it seems adorably naive to think they actually do that in general, or that they wouldn't pull this particular data separately to generate these proofs.
reply
Unethical doesn't mean irrational. They'd be risking massive lawsuits and a total loss of trust if they got caught lying about this. Doesn't seem worth it.
reply
Sounds like exactly what OpenAI would do?
reply
They've done similar things with similar risks repeatedly.
reply
Example?
reply
You can read their Wikipedia page [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#Governance_and_legal_is...

reply
These examples aren't really similar. None of those situations involve harming and lying to their own customers.
reply
Nonsense; the claim was that they wouldn't do anything that would mean they'd be

> risking massive lawsuits and a total loss of trust

Evidence of the massive lawsuits and lack of trust seems pretty relevant.

reply
By "loss of trust", I meant that this is something they would risk losing a lot of users over, which isn't the case with the other lawsuits. There is a massive distinction between fighting third parties in a legal grey area and committing blatant fraud against your own users. Even if you have no regards for ethics, intentionally shipping a noop "do not train" toggle offers negligible upside for a massive downside.
reply
They're being sued for several issues that resulted in the deaths of users; that's not fraud, but it is against their users.

The parallel still holds, and the information is still on the page I linked.

reply
From OpenAI's point of view, the risks are not comparable at all:

1) Extreme edge case affecting a handful of users, vs millions of users using the data sharing opt out.

2) The deaths are unintentional.

3) They probably won't lose any users over this.

4) They will likely win the lawsuits. Even if they lose or settle, the financial impact will be immaterial.

reply
I answered your initial question in good faith, but it's increasingly clear each time you shift the goalposts that you're more interested in JAQ than discussing.

As before, despite your prevarication, I've provided examples of

- Massive lawsuits

- Risks to consumer trust

I know you are excited to quibble endlessly over this, but it's transparently disingenuous each time you jump to a new point and pretend it was there originally.

Consider: if your point was defensible, you would have been able to make it honestly.

reply
That doesn't stop them from training on your data apparently. I have that disabled but still has to disable "Don't train on my data" in the privacy center too.

https://privacy.openai.com/policies?modal=take-control

reply
Is this claim based on anything besides there being an alternative way to disable it? The privacy center mirrors multiple other functions as well, like account deletion and downloading personal data, but the corresponding buttons in ChatGPT are still doing what they are supposed to.
reply
It's based on the fact that I had the switch in the setting disabled but this was still something available for me to request.

After the request, this was no longer accessible.

reply
Even that sort of thing they could just as easily go 6 months from now

"oopsie guys, turns out our vibe coded "don't train on my data" toggle was just flipping the ui asset not changing any underlying boolean flag associated with your account. sorry but all that stuff is in the training set now and we don't know how to get it out either and no we won't be doing a 6 month rollback."

reply
I think that flow is an easy way to disable everything, so there isn’t a risk of forgetting to flip one thing back off after accidentally setting it on. I set my ChatGPT environment to allow model improvement for example but had to check my codex settings to make sure ‘Include environments’ for model improvement is off.

I think if I had both on and turned off the ChatGPT setting, ‘Include environments’ has a chance of still being flipped on.

reply
If that's true, it's scandalous. The "improve the model for everyone" dialogue states:

"Allow your content to be used to train our models, which makes ChatGPT better for you and everyone who uses it. We take steps to protect your privacy. Learn more"

reply
Even if you've ticked that box, the conversation can still be trained on if you:

(a) Click thumbs-up/down in the conversation [1]

(b) Have the conversation flagged for potential safety concerns

[1]: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5722486-how-your-data-is....

reply
They hide that button. Quite well.
reply
That option is really bad UX - you have to know to do it, you have to know what plan it is needed on. If you're not working in AI, I just don't think that's a reasonable expectation.

Even if you know, in a complex project over years with multiple collaborators, it just needs one person once to fuck up and paste something into ChatGPT and not realise they weren't logged in, to go wrong.

In a proper world, we'd at the very least legislate that AI-training on private data needs consent (in the GDPR sense). It's not consent to go "you didn't uncheck a box that lets me steal everything you've done".

Any training on private data is in my view immoral (it's spying that ultimately will have a chilling effect on even people's private communications). And chats are private data. Unfortunately, it also increases power, so the big tech companies are all doing it.

reply