To me, no company has the customers’ best interests in mind. This whole thing is akin to when Apple was refusing to unlock phones for the FBI. Of course, Apple profits by having people think that they take privacy seriously, and they demonstrate it by protecting users’ privacy. Same thing here; OpenAI needs chats to have some expectation of privacy, especially because a large use case of AI is personal advice on things. So they are fighting to make sure it's true.

▲

latexr 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> To me, no company has the customers’ best interests in mind.

Lavabit opted to stop operating rather than give the FBI access to client emails.

https://archive.ph/20200915083857/https://www.nytimes.com/20...

▲

immibis 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Both OpenAI and NYT are bad. I don't know about NYT's privacy policy, because that's not really the industry they're in, but they did admit to fabricating a story that led to a now 2-year-long war, so.

▲

NewsaHackO 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, but I think at least in this instance, OpenAI needs people to think that what they ask ChatGPT is private. They will have no business model if everyone thought that whatever private question they ask could fall into the hands of a media company and be used for anything. Also, at least when I signed up, you had to provide either a highly trusted email address or phone number to sign up, so your identity is definitely attached to whatever question you ask ChatGPT. They know how high the stakes are for them in this suit.

▲

rockskon 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Which story is this?

	▲	ferngreen 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		And their followups https://theintercept.com/2024/01/28/new-york-times-daily-pod... https://theintercept.com/2024/03/04/nyt-october-7-sexual-vio...
	▲	ferngreen 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The Story Behind the New York Times October 7 Exposé https://share.google/2HB4zPEGi7x3JTYyj