| ▲ | epistasis 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
OpenAI and Anthropic are open about using user data to train on, it's not me "figuring" anything. Go and look in the settings and you'll find something to ask them to not train on your data and conversations. > I mean, I can also make up a training process that makes me right? Seems kind of obvious that they are paraphrasing data. I'm not fully following what you're saying here. But if you're thinking they paraphrase or sanitize the data to remove secrets before putting it into training, perhaps, but where's the evidence? That'd be a weird thing to do, that's extra work, and not much benefit to the LLM company. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | doctorpangloss 3 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
the discourse on hacker news has gotten very bad. why are we having this stupid conversation, where you say it would be weird for the people who you are mad about to do the obvious thing to solve the problem you are mad about? i agree that they don't have evidence of how the training data is prepared, but that's a separate issue from, are they going to make obvious mistakes? the LLMs have never hallucinated a key that came from a conversation... there's no evidence that the threat you are describing ever has or ever will occur, other than you can imagine that it could happen, and look, I am also imagining that these people are not stupid and paraphrase the data, so is it just a battle of imaginations? | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||