https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.6...
https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.6...
It was doing this prior to being sued by the NYT and many others
OpenAI was collecting chats even when the user asked for deletion, i.e., the user did not want them saved
That's why a lawsuit could require OpenAi to issue a hold order, retain these chats for longer and produce them to another party in discovery
If OpenAI was not collecting these chats in the ordinary course of its business before being sued by the NYT and many others, then there would be no "deleted chats" for OpenAI to be compelled by court order to retain and produce to the plaintiffs
1. Or whatever period OpenAI decides on. It could change at any time for any reason. However OpenAI cannot change their retention policy to some shortened period after being sued. Google tried this a few years ago. It began destroying chats between employees after Google was on notice it was going to be sued by the US government and state AGs
Im an age of automated backups and failovers, deleting can be really hard. Part of the answer could simply be that syncing a delete across all the redundancies (while ensuring those redundancies are reliable when a disaster happens and they need to recover or maintain uptime) may take days to weeks. Also the 30 days could be the limit, as oppose to the average or median time it takes.
Also I suspect there is a big gap between best practice and common practice. My guess is common practice is dysfunctional. I would also suspect there is no standard way, but there are established practices within different technology stacks that vary between performative, barely compliant and effective at scale.
In one case I saw there was a substantial manual effort to load snapshots into instances run the delete and then save new snapshots. This was over 10 years ago though and it was more of a "we just need to get this done" than a "what's the most elegant way to do this at scale"
And I say this knowing that intentionally deleting data is harder than it looks.
Something about game theory, art of war, and the difference between stated intentions and actual intentions.
Trustworthiness comes from alignment of stated intentions, actual intentions, abilities and actions. Someon can have integrity between stated and actual intentions, but fail to follow through. In this case I think we doubt the integrity between openais stated and actual intentions.
So Sam can be saying stuff and then we find out he wasn't being honest. We can learn over time about his intentions by watching actions instead of listening to what he says. Then we can make new assumptions based on what his actual intentions seem like.
Based on what I assume Sam's intentions to be (with some healthy suspicion of the alignment between his stated intentions and actual intentions), I'm still skeptical that the reason for the 30 day thing goes far beyond quality control, the difficulty of balancing deletion and redundancy and the features of the tech stack they are using.
I doubt it's that. Deletion is hard, but it's not "exactly 30 days" hard.
The most likely explanation is that OpenAI wants the ability to investigate abuse and / or publicly-made claims ("ChatGPT told my underage kid to <x>!" / "ChatGPT praised Hitler!"). If they delete chats right away, they're flying blind and you can claim anything you want.
Now, whether you should have a "delete" button that doesn't really delete stuff is another question.
This is an intelligence service's wet dream.
I don't think you even need to go as far as to Microsoft (who have earned zero points in the Privacy Protection league), just have a look at Altmans "I want to create a biometric database of every human" Orb/World-coin eye-scanning project: https://www.ft.com/content/0c5c2b8d-b185-40b6-9221-b80ee130b...
When working on an e-commerce gig we would get "delete my data" requests from customers, which we're legally obliged to comply with. A script would delete everything we could from the DB immediately. Since we had 30 day backups, their data would only be deleted from the backups on day 31. I think this was acceptable to the GDPR consultant.
Going in to the backups to delete their data there in insane.
If I was legally obliged to delete data then I'd make sure I deleted, regardless of the purpose or location of the storage. If you can't handle a delete request you shouldn't collect the data in the first place.
But this obviously means building an extensive system to ensure the encoded identifier is the only thing used across your system (or a giant key management system).
In the past I’ve been a part of systems at exabyte scale that had to implement this. Hard but not impossible. I can see how orgs try to ‘legalese’ their way out of doing this though because the only forcing function is judicial.
If you don't want your data online then don't put it there.
Nevertheless, you're generally correct but you don't realize why: A core feature of ChatGPT is that it keeps your conversation history right there so you can click on it, review it, and continue conversations across all of your devices. The court order is to preserve what is already present in the system even if the user asks to delete it.
For those who are confused: A core feature of ChatGPT and other LLM accounts is that your past conversations are available to return to, until you specifically delete them. The problem now is that if a user asks for the conversation to be deleted, OpenAI has to retain the conversation for the court order even though it appears deleted.
Is it a requirement that ChatGPT users own multiple computers
Is it a requirement that ChatGPT users use ChatGPT on multiple computers
Is it true that a goal of online advertising services providers is to learn about all of an ad targets' computers and link them to a single identity
Is every software "feature" necessary
Are there "features" in some software that benefit software developers more than software users, e.g., through data colllection, surveilllance and advertising services
Should all software "features" chosen by developers be "opt-out", with default settings chosen by developers not users, or should some be "opt-in"
What if a "feature" chosen by a developer that no user ever requested cannot be implemented as "opt-in". Should users that do not wish to subject themselves to the "feature" use the software
Is ChatGPT chat history a "feature"