> people need to get it in their heads that they're not chatting with their secret BFF, they're chatting with Big Tech

Yup. And with zero privacy protections in statute for AI chat, there is nothing to prevent an AI CEO looking to curry political favour from e.g. handing over the private correspondence of an opponent or an entire district’s residents.

▲

nradov 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Customers who what privacy protections for AI chats are welcome to negotiate this in enterprise contracts. The major LLM vendors do offer that as an option. Customers can then enforce any violations in civil court (although this obviously wouldn't apply if the customer used the LLM for criminal purposes).

▲

Dylan16807 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> welcome to negotiate this in enterprise contracts

I really hope you mean that in an insulting way to the industry and current legal situation, not as an actual solution.

	▲	nradov 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Where's the insult? Lots of customers have such agreements.

▲

HPsquared 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Or something like leaking every non-corporate ChatGPT user's chat logs (including temporary chats) to the NY Times.

▲

tpoacher 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Or making up stuff

	▲	sigbottle 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Don't know why this got downvoted? This is a problem with epistemics. It's more efficient to have one central "verifier" for everything, but the "who watches the watchers"? question basically says: Either constrain by construction, have everyone verify (which are two sides of the same coin, btw, when looking at a "global" thing), or centralize explicitly.