Comment by glenstein
8 hours ago
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!
>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.
There is a court order that OpenAI must produce these documents. OpenAI litigated this issue and lost. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The court decided the documents were relevant and they must produce a subset of them. Rather than immediately complying, they went and posted this BS "article".
>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".
I don't think you read TFA.
>Try reading, it's fun!
Lol, rudeness aside, you are apparently poorly informed. No doubt it is because you are relying on OpenAI's telling of the events and not actual reporting on the events. Btw, yesterday they were ordered to produce 20m redacted logs. You keep going on about the original discovery request, but that's not what the issue is and it's not the issue OpenAI lost on that they are now crying to the public about.
Also btw, I saw you posting in other comments that OpenAI needs to figure out how to anonymize the data. You probably don't realize this, but OpenAI already represented to the court that the data was anonymized and now are just using this as another delay tactic. Something about "reading being fun". I'd agree. Still, it does depend what you read. Try reading some more!
2 replies →