Probably not. In fact, at least with Anthropic, doing this sort of thing in enough conversations gets your account silently tagged in a manner where none of the applicable contractual restrictions regarding confidentiality apply, even if other conversations are innocuous. This is assuming ZDR is not enabled. You can see evidence of that in Anthropic's "Detecting and countering misuse of AI: September 2026" report. Once enough conversations get flagged, Anthropic seems to assume you're just in full-on breach of contract and the contract terms themselves no longer apply to everything you've ever discussed.

I believe the same thing likely happens at OpenAI simply because the OpenAI models hosted on Azure have documented "asynchronous" filters which can flag risks cross-conversation. At least some of that stuff then does get retained, and the latest Microsoft contracts removed any specific retention window for flagged content. Again, assuming MAM (Microsoft's "ZDR") is not enabled. This type of architecture at Azure probably didn't arise in a vacuum. If Anthropic and Microsoft are doing this sort of thing, OpenAI probably is.

Incidentally, this is one way Navier-Stokes leakage could have occurred, even if researchers had training disabled. Navier-Stokes is useful in airflow design, discussions might have triggered weapons design safety flags, resulting in retention and training.

Here are the nude pictures of my girlfriend in an unclosed envelope. I give it to you to keep. Pinky promise you will never look at it.

I'm surprised they even feel a need to trick you. They have access to the data and more than enough motivation.

Yeah, why didn't I think of just spending $30k/month on an inference server and figuring out how to train a 2T parameter model. I clearly don't care about this at all or I would just do that.

Agreed. Azure, GCP, and AWS have gated models that only exist in their infrastructures and can't dial out unless yous give them permissions to do so.

Don't use a models only company if you need enterprise level security and data protection.

fair enough, but I still think it's an ethical issue for the model providers to silently reenable training after people have explicitly opted out

Yeah but how expensive is that vs $20 or 100/month subs?

Its astonishing that anyone thinks that these companies even respect the checkbox. These are some of the objectively scummiest companies on earth that have violated nearly ever copyright law we have

I think this is the new Claude Code in-session suggestions for feedback - I think they generate in-session even though they're unsubmittable for the org. Kind of bad UX.

They already do. Outside of tiny companies the norm is block all AI across the board if they have the IT staff that knows how. From what I've seen, large enterprise companies are still testing the waters outside of dev/IT use.

it's actually fascinating that so many corporations are just willing to give up their entire intellectual properties, real & imagined, to a third party because it might let them remove a percent of their work force. Especially when told "it can do it", and they dont fill in the "without you".

I've no doubt, Palentir's forward deployed engineers will essentially operate like the borg and turn companies into defacto subjugated properties.

My personal view on this is that there are enough people who need this to not be happening or who would be very happy to catch any of the major frontier model providers fibbing about it, that needles are constantly being added to the haystack and searched for in subsequent models and requests made to them.

Proof of training or RAG search on data that was private would be a huge smoking gun and would change usage habits overnight.

If you *really* care, run your own inference. Everything else is just wishful thinking and/or convenience winning over self-sovereignty.

you cant do it for personal subs with oai or ant no?

Unfortunately, they are also changing that a bit:

> Thank you for using Daybreak Blue and for being part of our Trusted Access program. We are reaching out to notify you of an upcoming change to how your Daybreak Trusted Access data may be used. Daybreak use requires you to enroll in Advanced Account Security, which turns off the “improve the model for everyone” setting. However, from November 29, we may use content from Daybreak Blue sessions on personal accounts to improve our models, including to help strengthen safeguards against cyber misuse. We will use Daybreak Blue interactions for these purposes, even when the “improve the model for everyone” setting is off.

That quote isn't reasonable when there are profound economic incentives to do the malicious thing.

They do kind of have to eat their own dogfood (or at least pretend to publically), you do wonder if they'll be an interesting public example of choking on that dogfood at some point.

Malice and stupidity reinforce each other. If you find yourself unable to determine which one is causing the issue, run.

> 99.9% certain not a single human being has a deep understanding of what is going on with the Codex app anymore

Because humans actually don't have the ability to.

[flagged]

Mine got move out of the user menu on the lower left to just above the user menu as it's own clickable selection. The other day, I though they took the old quick view of usage away, and started going back to the settings to look. Turns out they just moved it.

> Not accessible anymore in the menu, and /usage in the codex app now also gives a lot of stats

Codex shows the usage limits on /status - Claude instead does it on /usage.

fwiw I can still see my usage in the Codex app