But there is evidence, the blog post says: "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ."

In other words, yes, they had been using ChatGPT, and yes, ChatGPT could very well have trained on their data. Now that there is evidence, we need an investigation: yes or no, was it the case?

▲

fc417fc802 a day ago | parent [-]

That is not an admission of malfeasance though? As I read it they don't know if anyone fed relevant private documents into the model under an account configured to permit training on user data.

If there's more to the story I'd be interested to hear it.

▲

hellohello2 a day ago | parent [-]

Of malfeasance no, but they could have easily plagiarized unintentionally. If you commit mansalughter, you still need to explain yourself, even if it was a complete unlucky accident.

▲

fc417fc802 17 hours ago | parent [-]

So you're saying that they could have committed manslaughter, but acknowledge that we have no evidence that they did. So why should they need to explain themselves? Isn't is on the aggrieved party to bring evidence?

	▲	hellohello2 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]