Comment by nikcub

> But that's not how the law sees it

Anthropic paid several billion dollars to settle a lawsuit they were likely to lose. OpenAI is now about to get taken to the cleaners for corporate espionage against Apple. They do not give a fuck about the law. Paying $5 billion for some fines is a trivial cost of doing business when you're aiming for trillion-dollar IPOs.

> make me think irrationally when it comes to whether or not these AI companies honor the terms they provide.

Irrationality is thinking there's such a thing as honor and that companies which have repeatedly broken the law for data won't do it again when there's no enforcement mechanism that acts as a real deterrent.

Their argument boils down to "they've done it once and nobody prevents them from doing it again"

This dog-and-pony-show is a rehash of the Pascal's wager we saw with smartphone security. Everyone thought it would be "corporate suicide" to hack an iPhone, but NSO Group did it. Apple sued NSO Group, and then settled out of court immediately after. Now we live in a post-hacking world and everyone pretends like this is an unavoidable necessary evil that corporations are powerless to stop. Suggesting litigation is a comically useless strategy because the law rubberstamps any form of useful surveillance or retention. Failing that, NSO Group has enough sycophant lobbyists to smear anyone that takes their threat seriously. Look at OpenAI and Anthropic and tell me that it's not the same hostage situation; can you?

You can do whatever stupid stuff you want to with your data. But this is an absurd amount of faith to give to guilty businesses, on the level of planning your world domination schemes over Skype.

https://www.anthropic.com/legal/privacy

> Personal data we collect or receive to train our models

> • Data that our users or crowd workers provide, including Inputs and Outputs from our Services (unless users opt out)

> • Feedback that users explicitly provide about our Services

> • Materials flagged for safety, security, or policy review

While I don’t have visibility into individual corp contracts, hitting tab on a FIM is ‘feedback’, so it is not so clear cut.

retention for 'safety' -> AI race as national security -> training on your data for 'national security' aka safety

It's simple mental calisthenics. If you are handing an organization whose entire business model is built on stealing data with spurious reasoning, what do you actually expect they will do? Don't be a fool.

> Explicitly signing a contract with enterprises to respect their IP and then proceeding to break that contract with your own customers.

You mean all the conditions that are attached to Fable use? My enterprise is deliberately holding off because those are unacceptable.

So because it would wreck they if others found out, it’s unlikely?

Which is more likely? That past behavior is an indication of future behavior, or that they because they could be eliminated from being found out it’s unlikely they’d do that thing. (By the way it’s also likely they’d are eliminated if they dont train their data with every advantage over their competitors possible). So I think it’s naive to think the incentives reward not doing the malicious thing now.

They're not training on your data, they're training on "please anonymise this conversation" data.

It's an unenforceable clause. The affected party has no means to prove that a breach has happened.

Yes, my comment only applies to Claude - I have no knowledge of OpenAI policy.

There are multiple ways to use feedback. Personally I would often be fine with actual human reading my feedback, taking in account the points I made and evaluating how it should affect their feature development and future roadmap.

Now what I would expect AI companies to do is to take things which were submitted as feedback and pretty much adding to training:

"Do more of this: <copy of the whole response which was flagged as good in feedback>"

"Do less of this: <copy of the whole response which was flagged as bad in feedback>"

It's paraphrased, but the point is that they will most likely use it more-or-less as-is and thus whatever is in there will be part of the model's training set rather than someone picking up the parts from response that are important and only including them (which happens with traditional feedback).