5 ms·

Given OpenAI's well documented history of unethical behaviour it seems adorably naive to think they actually do that in general, or that they wouldn't pull this

by msy 7d ago

Given OpenAI's well documented history of unethical behaviour it seems adorably naive to think they actually do that in general, or that they wouldn't pull this particular data separately to generate these proofs.

olalonde 7d ago
Unethical doesn't mean irrational. They'd be risking massive lawsuits and a total loss of trust if they got caught lying about this. Doesn't seem worth it.
- Planktonne 7d ago
  They've done similar things with similar risks repeatedly.
  - olalonde 7d ago
    Example?
    - Planktonne 6d ago
      You can read their Wikipedia page [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#Governance_and_legal_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#Governance_and_legal_is...
      - olalonde 6d ago
        These examples aren't really similar. None of those situations involve harming and lying to their own customers.
        Planktonne 6d ago
        Nonsense; the claim was that they wouldn't do anything that would mean they'd be > risking massive lawsuits and a total loss of trust Evidence of the massive lawsuits and lack of trust seems pretty relevant.
        olalonde 6d ago
        By "loss of trust", I meant that this is something they would risk losing a lot of users over, which isn't the case with the other lawsuits. There is a massive distinction between fighting third parties in a legal grey area and committing blatant fraud against your own users. Even if you have no regards for ethics, intentionally shipping a noop "do not train" toggle offers negligible upside for a massive downside.
        Planktonne 6d ago
        They're being sued for several issues that resulted in the deaths of users; that's not fraud, but it is against their users. The parallel still holds, and the information is still on the page I linked.
        olalonde 6d ago
        From OpenAI's point of view, the risks are not comparable at all: 1) Extreme edge case affecting a handful of users, vs millions of users using the data sharing opt out. 2) The deaths are unintentional. 3) They probably won't lose any users over this. 4) They will likely win the lawsuits. Even if they lose or settle, the financial impact will be immaterial.
        Planktonne 6d ago
        I answered your initial question in good faith, but it's increasingly clear each time you shift the goalposts that you're more interested in JAQ than discussing. As before, despite your prevarication, I've provided examples of - Massive lawsuits - Risks to consumer trust That's what was asked for; your assertion that it will totally all be fine doesn't invalidate that. I know you are excited to quibble endlessly over this, but it's transparently disingenuous each time you jump to a new point and pretend it was there originally. Consider: if your point was defensible, you would have been able to make it honestly.
        olalonde 3d ago
- dgellow 7d ago
  Sounds like exactly what OpenAI would do?

by msy 7d ago

olalonde 7d ago

Unethical doesn't mean irrational. They'd be risking massive lawsuits and a total loss of trust if they got caught lying about this. Doesn't seem worth it.

Planktonne 7d ago
They've done similar things with similar risks repeatedly.
- olalonde 7d ago
  Example?
  - Planktonne 6d ago
    You can read their Wikipedia page [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#Governance_and_legal_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#Governance_and_legal_is...
    - olalonde 6d ago
      These examples aren't really similar. None of those situations involve harming and lying to their own customers.
      - Planktonne 6d ago
        Nonsense; the claim was that they wouldn't do anything that would mean they'd be > risking massive lawsuits and a total loss of trust Evidence of the massive lawsuits and lack of trust seems pretty relevant.
        olalonde 6d ago
        By "loss of trust", I meant that this is something they would risk losing a lot of users over, which isn't the case with the other lawsuits. There is a massive distinction between fighting third parties in a legal grey area and committing blatant fraud against your own users. Even if you have no regards for ethics, intentionally shipping a noop "do not train" toggle offers negligible upside for a massive downside.
        Planktonne 6d ago
        They're being sued for several issues that resulted in the deaths of users; that's not fraud, but it is against their users. The parallel still holds, and the information is still on the page I linked.
        olalonde 6d ago
        From OpenAI's point of view, the risks are not comparable at all: 1) Extreme edge case affecting a handful of users, vs millions of users using the data sharing opt out. 2) The deaths are unintentional. 3) They probably won't lose any users over this. 4) They will likely win the lawsuits. Even if they lose or settle, the financial impact will be immaterial.
        Planktonne 6d ago
        I answered your initial question in good faith, but it's increasingly clear each time you shift the goalposts that you're more interested in JAQ than discussing. As before, despite your prevarication, I've provided examples of - Massive lawsuits - Risks to consumer trust That's what was asked for; your assertion that it will totally all be fine doesn't invalidate that. I know you are excited to quibble endlessly over this, but it's transparently disingenuous each time you jump to a new point and pretend it was there originally. Consider: if your point was defensible, you would have been able to make it honestly.
        olalonde 3d ago
dgellow 7d ago
Sounds like exactly what OpenAI would do?