Hacker News Reader

Comment by tristanj | Hacker News Reader

This form is legally binding and has more legal weight than just clicking a toggle. If they still train on my data, they can get sued, and I'll get a payout.

View on HN

Fighting legally against one of the richest companies in existence, with the entire American apparatus behind it, is a brave move

The world is pretty pissed at the u.s. and seeking sovereign models and ai. Richest or not if the companies are wise they will try a bit not to piss off the entire rest of the world. At this point many countries are willing to cut off the u.s. even if they take a short or medium term hit.

As legaly binding as all the data the license and ToS of which they ignored when scrapping - before trying to sell it back with an eternal subscription to their plagiarism machine ?

How would you prove they trained on your data specifically?

Showing that a novel mathematical approach was in your prompts shortly before the model “proposes” that approach to relative amateurs would be ideal, if only we had a case like that…

and still they denied it - it only shows that we have little recourse.

It’s possible that they didn’t train on it, and the approach was derived by the LLM.

What’s a problem is that they haven’t outright denied it. That could be caution and them doing their due diligence first, it could be that it was intentional and they didn’t expect to get caught, or it could be because they have no way of knowing themselves.

Are there any precedents that companies got sued on this? Not that I doubt you, but it would be nice to see if it actually has teeth or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com