4 ms·

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

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 5d 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
        Those examples aren't really comparable in scale, especially regarding risk to consumer trust. How many users did they actually lose from wrongful death lawsuits? I guess very few. Shipping an intentionally fake privacy toggle is fundamentally different. That is deliberate, active deception targeted at the entire user base. The resulting fallout would be far more damaging to them than settling an isolated lawsuit. That could even potentially cross the threshold into criminal fraud. I'm genuinely incredulous you believe they'd take so much risk for so little reward.

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 5d 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
        Those examples aren't really comparable in scale, especially regarding risk to consumer trust. How many users did they actually lose from wrongful death lawsuits? I guess very few. Shipping an intentionally fake privacy toggle is fundamentally different. That is deliberate, active deception targeted at the entire user base. The resulting fallout would be far more damaging to them than settling an isolated lawsuit. That could even potentially cross the threshold into criminal fraud. I'm genuinely incredulous you believe they'd take so much risk for so little reward.