According to public material, Google does not train Gemini on Gmail or Docs: https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/gmail/pr... https://proton.me/business/blog/google-docs-ai-scraping

▲

smlacy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yet

▲

madhatter999 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Given it's Google, I don't believe it.

▲

danpalmer an hour ago | parent [-]

That's up to you, but occam's razor would suggest the most likely thing is that they are in fact just doing what they say they do in their T&Cs.

▲

madhatter999 an hour ago | parent [-]

If that's what Occam's razor would suggest, then Occam presumes a world where actors do what they say. We see more and more the opposite of that in Silicon Valley.

You may well be right about Google not including the said data but your support for this point is weak.

	▲	danpalmer 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes Occam does quite literally state that – the option with the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct. Assuming that someone is lying is an extra assumption to make over what they are claiming to do. Malicious acts from large corporations are certainly well known, but they're also grossly over-represented in the news and mindshare. Mostly things just work as they say they work. I don't really know what proof you're looking for, it's well known that it's hard to prove a negative. I'm not suggesting taking Google (or anyone else) at face-value, but rather saying that when you think about T&Cs, laws, PR, etc, it's unlikely.

▲

WithinReason 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They cached the entire internet an have Google Books though