If I was a company with a zero data retention contract involving OAI I would be asking for a third party audit of such claim of zero retention like, yesterday.

▲

int32_64 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Could they say they don't retain, but do something "transformative" like use their own AI to summarize and paraphrase user sessions?

	▲	Keyframe 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		data collection companies regularly fuzz and mask data and call it a day. the fuzz and the mask quality is debatable.
	▲	anon48293 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes, and that’s exactly what I believe they are doing

▲

linkregister 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is there an implication of violation of ZDR here? Not a challenge. Just a request for clarification.

▲

igleria 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

to my knowledge the mathematicians did not have ZDR so it would be incorrect to assume OAI violated such a thing.

I'm suggesting audits, not suing... if that is the implication.

▲

dakolli 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

By the way, the company that made it's entire product off of stealing all data it could get it's hand on while violating copyright and pirating, is not all of a sudden going to respect your data. If you think OpenAI or any major AI lab is going to give you true ZDR, I have a bridge to sell you.

▲

fc417fc802 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So use bedrock or vertex or whatever. Those are the ZDR offerings. Or was it your intention to insinuate that the major cloud providers are conspiring with openai to violate their contractual obligations to their customers?

	▲	dakolli an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. You're naive if you think any of these cloud providers care about your data when they're all in the midst of a AI revolution psychosis. They dont care about their reputation or what you think of them, they think they're going to have a machine god their side.

▲

linkregister an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

If my company finds any evidence of OpenAI violating ZDR, we'll sue for breach of contract and fraud, and collect damages. I think we'll be able to afford the bridge you're selling. You've got the title and title insurance, right?

▲

irthomasthomas 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It can still be academic plagiarism even if they ticked the box to allow training on their prompts.

▲

infamouscow 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The idea OpenAI or Anthropic won't train on your data—even with an enterprise contract—is a fantasy at best, and dilusion at worst.

▲

letmevoteplease 6 hours ago | parent [-]

This is how every conspiracy theorist thinks: my enemy is Bad, and if they did a Bad thing, it would be Good for them, therefore they obviously did it. No evidence needed other than "motive" + my enemy is evil. But even if your enemy is evil, in this case, they would be fools to take the legal risk of violating their contract for the minimal upside of a tiny bit more training data (and fools to assume this would not be exposed in a large organization). So you need to assume your enemy is both evil and remarkably stupid.

▲

jsw97 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think it’s probably not surprising that they would go up to the contractual limit or into a grey area; but exceeding that would require too much coordination among individuals, as you say.

▲

boinkboink78912 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

ghk-adsf 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	bawolff 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, people who believe things without evidence because it fits their personal narrative are consiracy theorists. The thing that makes someone not a conspiracy theorist is evidence.