Hacker News Reader

Comment by andy_ppp | Hacker News Reader

You believe any of these companies care about the law? They care about winning and building the self improving AI as quickly as possible.

View on HN

I too am sceptical but I’ll take my chances. At least it’s helping the open weights.

I believe the that the companies who claim to not train on my data are more likely to not train on my data than the companies who refuse to even claim they won't.

Also why Meta gets a +1, just charge less money on the training path.

I’m not sure that follows. You’re assuming that all those claims have the same weight, without considering the size, jurisdiction, reputation or even the general vibe of the company making that claim.

If you factor that in, then there are clearly different tiers: one you can trust, and one that may well just be saying that to increase market share with little reputational or legal consequences if they are found to be lying.

These are not equal.

> I’m not sure that follows

To be fair, none of us are sure of anything and I think that’s the part that’s most irritating

It’s more a polite way of saying “that’s crap”

And mine a polite way to say “you are equally uninformed”. We’re not getting anywhere. All the best.

FYI it’s helpful to actually say your point during a discussion. And if you don’t want a discussion then why did you comment?

Absolutely galactic-level ooof :)

> ZCode, the GLM coding agent, silently uploads your Git history

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49752422

Yes I sometimes think the "don't train on my data" is actually a good signal for "this data/person is probably better to train on because they want to keep something private". The whole copyright system should have stopped these guys from training on everyone's data and it did not, if you think they care about the privacy checkbox I think you're dreaming personally, based on their past behavior.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com