[flagged]
No they're not. It would end both companies if they were ever found to be doing that.
Their terms are clear - if you use the coding plans they can[0] train in return. Enterprise and API, absolutely not.
The argument here is that with the Chinese labs you have zero legal recourse.
[0] opt-in, thanks
Enterprise contracts are checked and agreed by lawyers. The contract states no training.
If the provider fucks up, there are actual monetary damages defined for breach of contract.
I get that in principle that there's no retention, but these are powerful models that can comprehend, paraphrase and summarize your logs for the sake of "product" improvement. Who knows what's collected here.
Big tech spends hundreds of millions in high powered lawyers, audit logs, and contractual agreements with the sole purpose of proving your point wrong.
https://youtu.be/0A3sGymV6kY?si=ti7uSZtYqJ3vKpGM
I found it a little shocking TBH
Their terms are not worth shit considering they are reselling you stolen copyrighted data. Even in they terms they started clearly say they retain your data for "safety reasons" for however long they want. Perhaps you didn't watch the space with Anthropic going back and forth with ToS updates(we retain your data for 30 days...stike that and add 30 days or more or no or ..whatever) like my own alpha website.
* Exploiting ambiguity around fair use at a large scale before the law catches up and then jointly lobbying with your competition to make sure your interpretation of the law becomes reality.
* Explicitly signing a contract with enterprises to respect their IP and then proceeding to break that contract with your own customers.
The former is firmly in the gray area of legality and doesn't directly hurt your own customers. The latter is both an unambiguous contract violation and a flagrant attack on your own customers' most valuable asset.
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.
> 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.
Second: My argument doesn't hinge on Anthropic not being able to weasel their way out in court if it came to that. My argument is that neither Anthropic nor OpenAI are going to break their signed contracts or even fudge on the clearly communicated understandings of what the terms of the API pricing are because neither one wants to hand the other the obvious weapon of: "unlike {other guys} we honor our word".
It's just not happening, and comparisons upthread to the fair use story totally misunderstand the incentives at play here.
(And as an aside, this whole thread also shows clearly the classic programmer misunderstanding of the law. The peanut butter sandwich instructions analogy is for code, not for the law. The law doesn't actually work by allowing any possible interpretation to hold equal weight the way that many programmers think it does.)
Is that so? Recent rulings in the US specifically gave me the impression that when backed by sufficient legal representation and goodwill on the judging side indeed any possible interpretation will suffice.
I think that's what makes law making complicated - you either err on the side of leaving too much room for interpretation or not enough.
You mean all the conditions that are attached to Fable use? My enterprise is deliberately holding off because those are unacceptable.
Good, fine. This is an example of trusting the company to honor their own terms, not the opposite.
Either they respect IP, or they don't. Clearly they don't.
The discussion was about training, not data retention. Two very different concerns.
And if you're a decent sized customer, most providers have a route to not even retaining the data for safety/security reasons. The reason Anthropic had issues is because they do have a path to "no data storage" for Sonnet/Opus, but not for Fable. Which is why at work we have access to the former, but not the latter.
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.
I'm not comfortable with how these models were trained. I have quite a bit of open source code out there, and I personally see such training as copyright and license laundering.
But that's not how the law sees it, and I grudgingly accept that, regardless of how I may feel, and I don't let my feelings on the matter make me think irrationally when it comes to whether or not these AI companies honor the terms they provide.
Sure, they might be breaking their promises, training on our data when they say they won't. But I do think they most likely aren't, and that it would be corporate suicide if they were and it ever came out.
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.
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.
I think that is sort of their point. There was one thing that you, I, and millions of others would call infringement, (scraping the whole Internet to train proprietary models) but the law deemed it "fair use", and they got away with it with impunity. Now there is this other thing that we'd all (easily) call infringement, and I understand why people doubt that this time will be any different.
Not at all. My point is that the every thing they do is quite questionable from business development to sales & marketing
I don't believe anyone knows how to train the model in such a way that it's guaranteed not to remember any specifics while still having the training run be worth anything.
No, you have to opt-in to that. There's a privacy toggle on account settings.
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).
https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5722486-how-your-data-is...
> Even if you have opted out of training, you can still choose to provide feedback to us about your interactions with our products (for instance, by selecting thumbs up or thumbs down on a model response). If you choose to provide feedback, the entire conversation associated with that feedback may be used to train our models.
https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/7996885-how-do-you-us...
> If you explicitly report materials to us (e.g.via our thumbs up/down feedback mechanisms), or by otherwise explicitly opting in to training, then we may use those materials to train our models.
Or do you mean the feedback stuff? Their KB article at least seems to contradict that.
Not typosquat? I responded with a sentence beginning in “1” once, and it jumped in during the race. It should have prompted with something like “WARNING: This will allow us to use this session including your source code for training, which is in violation of your account settings. Proceed with “Yes I understand”.
i don't know why this is so controversial, their terms are written to perfectly fit this training regime. one of you downvoters i'm sure has an enterprise contract with them, just ask.
if you are using bedrock, until very recently, they didn't see your requests and could not paraphrase. but too many people were using bedrock for too much stuff they wanted to see. so that's why the terms for bedrock changed for fable 5. this was the core of the palantir / defense dept drama with anthropic.
Edit: And the point of the poster is they have already demonstrated a track record of lying and misconduct, so how can you trust their word now? What have they done to show you they have taken responsibility for past actions and changed?
> [Mr. Tan] has directed job candidates still working for Apple to bring “Actual parts” from Apple to their interviews for “show and tell” sessions in which he and his team at OpenAI can elicit still more Apple confidential information.
> As part of its investigation, Apple found a “pattern by employees who depart for OpenAI of taking steps to evade the security processes intended to protect Apple’s confidential information.”
> Apple also claims former engineer Liu exploited a security bug to download confidential engineering files after leaving the company. Rather than report the exploit, Liu allegedly joked about it in messages (“LOL,” “so funny”). Liu also failed to return an Apple-issued laptop after his departure.
This seems pretty close to "they trust me, dumb fucks" behaviour.
> ... for the legal workflows we see most
see.. where?
Not the API.
Terms for the app: https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/10023580-is-my-data-u...
The API: https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/7996868-is-my-data-us...
I also don’t trust them lol
* A company following suit with their entire industry in choosing a very generous definition of fair use.
* A company being the first to defect and actually break their signed contracts with enormous enterprises committing to not train on those enterprises' most valuable assets.
Training on copyrighted works signs them up to be a part of a system that is at this point too big to fail and places them in good company with all of their competition. Breaking their signed agreements would open them up to very well-founded and well-funded lawsuits for contract violation and give their competition a huge boost.
All of a sudden "we actually don't break our contracts" would be a selling point. No company in their right mind is going to let what should be table stakes become a differentiator for their competition.
So in your opinion, they are training on your data even if you toggle the "don't train on my data" checkbox off?
That's a bold assertion.
What they have been doing, with some narrow exceptions where they have lost billions of dollars in court cases*, is not at all obviously prohibited by copyright law. Neither web scraping (i.e. asking for copies of data from people you have every reason to believe are authorized to give you copies) or running algorithms on copyrighted data are generally copyright infringment. I say generally because the "algorithm" of "ctrl-c ctrl-v" is obviously an exception, and there's some argument that training is similar enough to be illegal - a fairly weak argument that is mostly losing in court but has some tiny chance of still succeeding.
The law doesn't have teeth to prohibit things not prohibited under the law - no matter how much many people would like them to be prohibited. This shouldn't be surprising.
Unlike with copyright, the law does pretty clearly prohibit violating contractual terms to not hang onto or use other peoples data for purposes other than the narrow ones laid out in the contract when you agreed to the contract.
* Namely acquiring copies of data from people who they know aren't authorized to make copies - i.e. torrenting.
So they are in fact literally putting copyrighted data into the model weights and reselling it.
More problematically there are camouflaged sharp spines pointed primarily in the direction of poorer people, and people not advised by lawyers.
But none of that matters here when the damaged parties include the megacorps of the world.
Past behaviour informs future trust and I wouldn't trust these companies whatsoever.
Anthropic paid $1.5 billion for that, and never publicly deployed a model derived from the illegally downloaded data.
I'm not sure about the other companies off the top of my head - but I rather imagine they either never did this (I note that Google for instance already has lawfully acquired copies of basically every scrap of data you can imagine wanting to pirate) or are in the process of being sued or settled and I missed the news.
And none of this changes the fact that they did it in the first place and were comfortable doing so, thereby demonstrating that they are not trustworthy actors. If they could spend another 1.5B to advance their models with ill-gotten training data, there's every reason to believe they'd do it all over again.
Think of it as the Big Data hype some years ago.
Kek
I acknowledge that if you don't trust OpenAI, then you may not trust me either. But lying about this would be bad for legal liability, customer retention, and employee retention. Even if you model us as evil (and we really aren't), it's still not obvious to me that it would be a good decision to lie. As soon as a whistleblower revealed the scam, it would tank revenue and employee morale.