Comment by tristanj

In order for this to be the strong evidence everyone also has to believe that the setting is absolutely true. That some logging from some piece of the system could not also leak the prompt information in such a way that it could have been included as training data. Perhaps the design of how data is collected for the training dataset is so rigorous as to make this a practical impossibility. But, it's asking a lot without sufficient detail to completely exclude from possibility that one setting is all that could possibly have been absolutely load bearing in deciding if the other researcher's active efforts meaningfully contaminated the internal model.

At least, as an ignorant outsider, that's how it seems to me.

As I understand it, that setting does not prevent them training on user data, just which derivatives are used (i.e. just PII scrubbed vs certain types of synthetic summarization)