Comment by EdNutting
8 hours ago
So why aren’t they offering for an independent auditor to come into OpenAI and inspect their data (without taking it outside of OpenAI’s systems)?
Probably because they have a lot to hide, a lot to lose, and no interest in fair play.
Theoretically, they could prove their tools aren’t being used to doing anything wrong but practically, we all know they can’t because they are actually in the wrong (in both the moral and, IMO though IANAL, the legal sense). They know it, we know it, the only problem is breaking the ridiculous walled garden that stops the courts from ‘knowing’ it.
> Theoretically, they could prove their tools aren’t being used to doing anything wrong
That is proving a negative. You are never required to prove a negative.
> the only problem is breaking the ridiculous walled garden that stops the courts from ‘knowing’ it.
The "problem" of privacy?
By the same token, why isn't NYT proposing something like that rather than the world's largest random sampling?
You don't have to think that OpenAI is good to think there's a legitimate issue over exposing data to a third party for discovery. One could see the Times discovering something in private conversations outside the scope of the case, but through their own interpretation of journalistic necessity, believe it's something they're obligated to publish.
Part of OpenAI holding up their side of the bargain on user data, to the extent they do, is that they don't roll over like a beaten dog to accommodate unconditional discovery requests.
>By the same token, why isn't NYT proposing something like that rather than the world's largest random sampling?
It's OpenAI's data, there is a protective order in the case and OpenAI already agreed to anonymize it all.
>Part of OpenAI holding up their side of the bargain on user data, to the extent they do, is that they don't roll over like a beaten dog to accommodate unconditional discovery requests.
lol... what?
Discovery isn't binary yes/no, it involves competing proposals regarding methods and scope for satisfying information requests. Sometimes requests are egregious or excessive, sometimes they are reasonable and subject to excessively zealous pushback.
Maybe you didn't read TFA but part of the case history was NYT requesting 1.4 billion records as part of discovery and being successfully challenged by OpenAI as unnecessary, and the essence of TFA is advocating for an alternative to the scope of discovery NYT is insisting on, hence the "not rolling over".
Try reading, it's fun!
3 replies →