points by cududa 3 days ago | 0 comments
That is, fundamentally the marketing ploy of “AI Safety”.
For an AI system to be “completely safe”, like a self-driving car, it must map the full environment it operates in and be taught the “right way” to handle every conceivable scenario.
So when you present it with novel data or a situation, that constitutes an “AI safety event”, which per their ToS is a carve out for training on your session.
Further, go read the ToS carefully about what you opt out of. You’ll note there’s nary a mention of tool calls. You’re only opting out inputs (what you type) and outputs from the model from being trained on. All the content of the tool calls made while running on your system are fair game for training.
[–] alberto467 3 days ago
Well for us Europeans, GDPR explicitly allows them to store pretty much anything if somebody can claim it’s for safety.
It’s literally just complicating things and providing zero reassurance to us AI customers.
[–] tveyben 3 days ago
For safety - hmm new for me (European), please elaborate.
[–] manmal 3 days ago
You don’t need user consent to retain data that’s arguably needed to provide the service itself. I guess, safety falls into that category. Training on that data is probably a grey area, if they can guarantee it won’t contain PII. They have stolen all the internet, so I wouldn’t bet highly on their restraint.
[–] Dylan16807 2 days ago
It's very easy to prove that training is not necessary to provide the service, because whenever you're using a model it's static and the training only maybe goes into new models.
[–] zombot 2 days ago
It doesn't say for whose safety. It's certainly not yours.
[–] zombot 2 days ago
Additionally, how stable are those ToS? Do they change every few days, like their models?
[–] eckr 3 days ago
[–] bethekidyouwant 3 days ago
[–] popinman322 3 days ago
[–] degamad 2 days ago
Can you please expand on what you believe RL looks like in this context?