I think it’s pretty unreasonable to use the service.

If he didn't opt out I'm not sure I'd agree that it was fair game.

I'm pretty sure it would be considered plagiary amongst colleagues and it is a terrible precedent if we just let OpenAI steal any good idea they can get their hands on if they think it is profitable. You'd effectively sign away any and all rights to anything built with AI if OpenAI chooses to reengineer it before you.

> if we just let OpenAI steal any good idea they can get their hands on if they think it is profitable

I have terrible news about how literally every leading AI model was trained

That doesn't make it fine. We should not excuse this behaviour just because its rampant already, especially when it comes to such a serious prize

Sure, but unless you’ve got some exceptionally deep pockets, congress has seemingly no interest in turning the fact that it’s ethically bankrupt into any practical recourse.

Ai companies got where they are by stealing all of the intellectual property from human history. It seems entirely likely that their goal is to purloin everything produced going forward as well.

You're getting a massive discount because you're helping to train the model. If you want to have ZDR, you have to pay API rates.

This is well-known to anyone in the industry.

> If you want to have ZDR, you have to pay API rates.

That's a pinky swear. Especially as data gets harder to come by I'm curious how long till there's a scandal on that too.

If you don't trust the labs directly, you can always use AWS Bedrock or Azure Foundry which should have a much stronger incentive to not train. They make money from asset rental, not selling models. I'd be shocked if they were training.

This isn’t me advocating for maximum paranoia. I’m just saying that the “privacy” aspect of the API pricing is just a business promise. I do personal coding on API pricing with Claude mainly because a) I’m normally using it quite sparingly b) the commercial relationship is a lot more transparent than these subsidised relationships where they “may” be training on your work but can’t really seem to answer what that means.

If you think this through, it becomes a little classist

I feel like there's a pretty huge difference between using inputs and outputs as part of a general training corpus, and looking at a specific users workspace after hearing rumours and yoinking their ideas to beat them to the point.

Unless OpenAI finished a whole new training run on the latest data in the last few days, the possible allegation seems to be the latter.

Either are possible.

They have been collaborating on this solution for a year, and Astra was trained in February this year so it’s entirely possible the direction of their research was in the training corpus.

That was.. obvious? How are you shocked? Honestly, how insane must the suspension of disbelief on this site be, that anyone here is shocked?

You’d be surprised how many blind spots this site has.

Mining the chats for "good ideas" would be untenable, but that's a different situation than data ending up in a training set for a problem that OpenAI also happens to be independently working on. Still, I opt out (business plan), and I don't know why you wouldn't.

Why would mining chat transcripts for ideas be untenable? They already run a summarization model to auto-title the chat, and to run a bunch of safety filters, and presumably to score transcript quality for A/B testing and to collect more finetuning data. Seems like evaluating for open research questions and approaches would be pretty trivial extension of this, after all it’s kind of their core business model

Indefensible, not impossible. As you say it is quite technically feasible.

In what way are those two different? What makes the training data valuable if not to extract valuable information from it?

They sure as hell don't need it just to produce English.

It’s also very shortsighted to stiff a customer like that. Why would I trust them with my data and ideas?

I think that’s what we’re all talking about here, you shouldn’t.

If their solutions are significantly different, as OpenAI claims, would it still be considered plagiarism?

"If we just let OpenAI steal any good idea they can get their hands on." Ah, that's all AI does.

And in all reasonable circumstances the court would agree. Poisoning the water supply is an act of war let alone an illegal act of violence.

The most interesting part to me is the bike. I don't think any of them would actually work, but the mistakes feel somewhat human.

If you don't lay down your own roads you can't own a bike.

That's a bit of a touchy subject that exposes the fact that the EU has repurposed a system for designing industry standards (not laws) and has a shaky legal foundation.

To some extent countries are bound by EU law, but what this means depends on the institutions and legal structure within that country. Although the EU tends to claim they have final say, but how can someone interpreting national law agree with that if the EU goes against the law they are interpreting? Even if the EU is right they can only ask members to acoid contradiction, they lack the force to demand it.

Yeah this sounds like another scam. I big one. We should really find another way to govern societies.

The EU is not a government. It's a standard body for countries and their governments.

Ohh. But doesnt it push and control legislation? If it was just a standards body, couldn't countries governments just approve or deny recommendations at will?

It seems like its operating as a government too me, but maybe I am not seeing the whole picture.

Governments also codify into law that everything X standardizes is automatically a regulation for other standard bodies. Road and building standards work that way: they are just standards issued by a random association and the government has stated, that all developments in their jurisdiction need to follow this associations standards.

The government could also do this for the EU, it's called leaving the EU.

Some of its standards supersede national law (I think it was the regulations that did so, amd standards needed to be built into national law, could be the other way around).

And this makes a lot of sense with rules about food safety, product standards etc. It almost makes sense for privacy protections. It makes very little sense for surveillance laws.

Seems like an excellent way to optimize yourself out of a job, both figuratively and literally.

So no, I'm not going to assume that's what someone meant. I can at least pretend I consider people to be competent.

This is besides the point, but you do have to marvel at the technology it took to make this comment render just fine in HN.

I'd imagine Microsoft gave them pretty clear instructions to not let them know officially when they're bullying other companies on Microsoft's behalf.

I think all code is technical debt in a way. Good code is a necessary evil, bad code is more evil than necessary.

Generating code automatically when you're not even quite sure what it is or even should be doing is insanity.