For which they should be dragged in front of a court and sued for millions and billions, if it is found out, that they were simply wrong. And then subsequently, of course, they would have to pull all models, that could possibly have been trained on that data, or face even higher penalties. Haha, but of course I am just dreaming here.

The family has a grind to pick against her and is defending their golden child.

Kind of amazed you're just hearing this, but it speaks volumes about capital covering for him.

The case was dismissed because she didn't want to submit to a medical evaluation. This is extremely common for chronic rape victims.

https://www.thenerve.news/p/sam-altman-annie-altman-sexual-a...

A billionaire managing to get a case dismissed in the US legal system hardly suggests an accusation has no merit.

Every LLM company is built on taking a fast-and-loose approach to intellectual property.

Why should the purported legal protections on my LLM conversations be any different to the purported legal protections on those pirated ebooks, scraped newspaper websites, scraped photos, and suchlike?

All of the major cloud providers are LLM shops now, it seems...

But yes, I've been concerned about this for a long time too. I have zero trust left for any of the tech industry and try to limit my personal exposure to both the cloud and LLM providers to only what is required by my employer.

Training on customer data will give them a product that nobody will pay for.

Why train your own model? You could use one of the many models already available on HF.

You surely don't need frontier models for any job that isn't going to replace a human. If the human is still in the loop, just use a model the human can work with. It can be quite small. You could even be running Qwen 3.8 27B for each developer and it would be fine, and you are in control of your own destiny and can make more progressive judgements about things.

I don't really understand how the AI world has caused so much black-and-white thinking to come about. You are not under mortal threat if you don't use the latest models. This is just FUD. You still have people with brains and you might get a better result over the longer term if you use AI to assist them in their choices rather than make them sit there and hit return.

https://github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepInfer

Take Tristan Buckmaster, he is asserting OAI may have used his data to arrive at their proof. They initially said they couldn't say and then they amended their statement. So it's their word against his, but they showed no evidence and invited exactly zero independent 3rd parties to attest to this. Buckmaster would likely have to sue them to hopefully force their hand by court order. From our purview, he likely won't pursue legal counsel and OAI won't admit to using unauthorized content to train their models. We should likely accept that all AI corporations are using all data available to them full stop.

Think about it, these model interactions have been the frontier of human feedback across all disciplines and modalities. The sheer immensity of data flowing into their servers of human original content (with feedback) is likely much greater than what they scraped from the web or are continuing to scrape. Entire codebases being shared, entire business processes, reasoning behind said processes and a load of industry specific secrets have likely been shared in the interactions. The rise of agents with sub-agents each with minimal guardrails have gifted the models with the ability to exfiltrate all this data with the user consent and a minimal non-enforceable "do not train" check-mark that the unsuspecting user is unlikely to be able to show any harm later.

Their acquisition techniques prior to larger user bases included ample piracy. Anthropic (the holier than thou of the two) itself, has had to settle at $1.5b for using pirated books in training, why wouldn't they use every available avenue to help their models improve today legal or otherwise?

If data is being sent over the wire, assume someone is going to use it to improve their models. They all include a clause of 30-Day retention on pretty much on all user data to ensure "abuse" isn't happening. So they are using it, and telling you about it, not using data for model improvement is just cope for the user.

Having actual data just makes it more feasible.

In fact, my personal prediction is that OpenAI and Anthropic will let go of all their human employees by Q1 2027.