5 ms·

If you read Buckmasters statement, he specifically notes that they used the paid subscriptions, iirc.

by greggoB 8d ago

aenis 8d ago
The paid subscriptions have opt-out for sharing data for training purposes. I think it's on by default.
- y-curious 8d ago
  I don’t know because I use Anthropic, but I would eat my hat if this was on by default.
  - magicalhippo 8d ago
    It's opt-out for personal plans, and opt-in for business pla s and API. This is explained on the page[1] linked to from the privacy section of the pricing page. [1]: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5722486-how-your-data-is-used-to-improve-model-performance https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5722486-how-your-data-is...
Tenemo 8d ago
Paying for an account doesn't opt you out by itself, right? Has he stated anywhere that he actually opted out? But if not, then I also don't understand why OpenAI's communications about this have been so vague, they could've just said that he didn't opt out, using those chats in training data follows their ToS and that's it (whether that's "fair" is a separate discussion).
- Topfi 8d ago
  There has been no statement either way, as far as I could find beyond them only using commercially available models, though given Alpöges employer, I'd be surprised if they didn't opt out. In any case, for such work, ZDR or self-hosting seem to be an absolute must now. Unless OpenAI can show that training was permitted, this will erode the limited trust that many users have had in such toggles and may lead to further, uncomfortable inquiries.
- dgellow 8d ago
  We don’t need to guess, OpenAI pretty much indirectly they had the chats in their data set. OpenAI responses are the most suspicious part of that whole controversy, the fact they do not provide straight answers is not a sign of a good faith actor here
AlanYx 8d ago
>he specifically notes that they used the paid subscriptions, iirc. Where are you seeing that? He only says "We used several LLMs throughout: Anthropic’s Claude, OpenAI’s Codex, especially with GPT-5.6 Sol and, more recently, Astra. The latter was only used for writeups and auditing our arguments." I might be missing something, but he doesn't seem to confirm that he opted out, at least in the written writeup, maybe he has on social media? He also likely had early access to Astra given the timing, and I thought early access customers couldn't opt out? (Am I wrong about that?)
- greggoB 7d ago
  It's in this statement he released (linked in the article) [0]: "I pay for the tools my group uses out of my own research funds, including footing a large bill to OpenAI." [0] https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf
  - cma 7d ago
    API or consumer subscription? And did he share drafts of the work with anyone who fed it back in on a consumer subscription without disabling training? I have reason to believe OpenAI doesn't respect training opt outs, but there is a good chance they let something get through without an opt-out too.
    - greggoB 7d ago
      > API or consumer subscription It's not given in the statement, so I don't know > And did he share drafts of the work with anyone who fed it back in on a consumer subscription without disabling training? To this, the statement does have the following: "... the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack" Note his collaborator (Levent) works at Anthropic, so presumably he knows about opt ins/outs, etc. > I have reason to believe OpenAI doesn't respect training opt outs, but there is a good chance they let something get through without an opt-out too. I believe that, at this point in time, OpenAI's reputation speaks for itself. The stakes for success are already enormous, and the CEO has been repeatedly described by those around him as a pathological liar. People who choose to expose anything remotely sensitive can surely be expected to know the risks of doing so.

If you read Buckmasters statement, he specifically notes that they used the paid subscriptions, iirc.

aenis 8d ago

The paid subscriptions have opt-out for sharing data for training purposes. I think it's on by default.

y-curious 8d ago
I don’t know because I use Anthropic, but I would eat my hat if this was on by default.
- magicalhippo 8d ago
  It's opt-out for personal plans, and opt-in for business pla s and API. This is explained on the page[1] linked to from the privacy section of the pricing page. [1]: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5722486-how-your-data-is-used-to-improve-model-performance https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5722486-how-your-data-is...

Tenemo 8d ago

Paying for an account doesn't opt you out by itself, right? Has he stated anywhere that he actually opted out? But if not, then I also don't understand why OpenAI's communications about this have been so vague, they could've just said that he didn't opt out, using those chats in training data follows their ToS and that's it (whether that's "fair" is a separate discussion).

Topfi 8d ago
There has been no statement either way, as far as I could find beyond them only using commercially available models, though given Alpöges employer, I'd be surprised if they didn't opt out. In any case, for such work, ZDR or self-hosting seem to be an absolute must now. Unless OpenAI can show that training was permitted, this will erode the limited trust that many users have had in such toggles and may lead to further, uncomfortable inquiries.
dgellow 8d ago
We don’t need to guess, OpenAI pretty much indirectly they had the chats in their data set. OpenAI responses are the most suspicious part of that whole controversy, the fact they do not provide straight answers is not a sign of a good faith actor here

AlanYx 8d ago

>he specifically notes that they used the paid subscriptions, iirc. Where are you seeing that? He only says "We used several LLMs throughout: Anthropic’s Claude, OpenAI’s Codex, especially with GPT-5.6 Sol and, more recently, Astra. The latter was only used for writeups and auditing our arguments." I might be missing something, but he doesn't seem to confirm that he opted out, at least in the written writeup, maybe he has on social media? He also likely had early access to Astra given the timing, and I thought early access customers couldn't opt out? (Am I wrong about that?)

greggoB 7d ago
It's in this statement he released (linked in the article) [0]: "I pay for the tools my group uses out of my own research funds, including footing a large bill to OpenAI." [0] https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf
- cma 7d ago
  API or consumer subscription? And did he share drafts of the work with anyone who fed it back in on a consumer subscription without disabling training? I have reason to believe OpenAI doesn't respect training opt outs, but there is a good chance they let something get through without an opt-out too.
  - greggoB 7d ago
    > API or consumer subscription It's not given in the statement, so I don't know > And did he share drafts of the work with anyone who fed it back in on a consumer subscription without disabling training? To this, the statement does have the following: "... the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack" Note his collaborator (Levent) works at Anthropic, so presumably he knows about opt ins/outs, etc. > I have reason to believe OpenAI doesn't respect training opt outs, but there is a good chance they let something get through without an opt-out too. I believe that, at this point in time, OpenAI's reputation speaks for itself. The stakes for success are already enormous, and the CEO has been repeatedly described by those around him as a pathological liar. People who choose to expose anything remotely sensitive can surely be expected to know the risks of doing so.