Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmdrmac | Hacker News Reader

This bait-and-switch with privacy is what annoys me. I get that if the software was completely free, you are the product. But if I'm paying, why can I not have a privacy policy that actually benefits me - the user?

View on HN

Your payment is just a signal that you've got disposable income. You're paying to make yourself an even more valuable product for them to sell.

You're probably not paying nearly enough? IDK, but pricing in tech is stretched on both ends (either way too cheap, or incredibly expensive) so much that it's hard to say anything for sure just because one is a "paying customer".

> You're probably not paying nearly enough?

What are the real prices then? What is the “privacy price”?

2 weeks ago it was $60 billion apparently. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48553224

It might be higher now.

Some hundreds of thousands of dollars for a computer capable of local inference with GLM 5.2.

Fair point. I'd add on that the company should explicitly spell out strong privacy as a feature then and charge more. Saying that "we won't use your data for training", but then not really meaning it is a bit disingenuous. How I interpret that statement may not necessarily align with the company (i.e., what kind of training?).

Did LLM companies pay everyone for the code and text they stole?

No, they just reached some absurd token settlements that made a mockery of all other copyright enforcement victims.

One would think dozens of SWAT officers would rappel down helicopters and storm the mansions of these big tech CEOs in order to bring them out in cuffs and serve zillion dollar fines on behalf of the so called rights holders. Kim Dotcom got destroyed while AI companies got a slap on the wrist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com