> The Times argued that people who delete their ChatGPT conversations are more likely to have committed copyright infringement. And as Stein put it in the hearing, it’s simple “logic” that “[i]f you think you’re doing something wrong, you’re going to want that to be deleted.”
My most generous guess here is that the NYT is accusing OpenAI of deleting infringing user chats themselves, because the implication that someone would delete their history due to fear of copyright infringement is completely stupid.
shakna · 13m ago
It seems like an obvious take here. They were asked to preserve their logs, to prevent them from deleting incriminating information. Which is... Par for the course.
But OpenAI are desperately trying to spin it that the logs should not be allowed into evidence.
senko · 38s ago
[delayed]
profsummergig · 11m ago
This is a nuclear bomb sized development if it's true that all ChatGPT chats will be released to NYTimes lawyers to comb through.
It's not going to stop the rise of LLMs. But one should expect it to cause a lot of very strange news in the next couple of years (lawful leaks [i.e. "discovery"], unlawful leaks, unintended leaks, etc.).
The Justice system (pretty much anywhere) is amenable to being incentivized. It looks like NYT has found the right judge (take that how you will).
msgodel · 9m ago
Was anyone really thinking of those as private?
Xelbair · 3m ago
Unfortunately yes, by a lot of non-technical people.
portaouflop · 3m ago
If I want private i run the LLM on my machine.
Everything else should be considered public basically
aucisson_masque · 22m ago
don't know if the Times is such the bad guy that this article presents, imo the justice system in the USA has always been that way. They don't care how extravagant one request is or how little it makes sense so long as you got money and lawyer to push it.
I guess people could switch to one of the many chatgpt competitor that isn't being forced to give away your personal chat.
Don't even know what the time is trying to achieve now, the cat is out of the bag with LLM. Even if a judge ruled that chatgpt and other must give royalties to the time for each request, what about the ones running locally on joe's computer or in countries that don't care about American justice at all.
bilekas · 1m ago
Yeah, the headline is a little bit rage bait. There are countless disclosure requests that happen every day that could be spun to say "X wants your messages from Meta, Twitter etc" Well yeah, this isn't something new.
Infact I see it being hard to defend for OpenAI to basically say "Well yes, its standard practice to hand over any potential evidence, but no we're not doing that".
As for the deleted data, I wonder if legally there are obligations NOT to delete data ?
amelius · 16m ago
_Especially_ the deleted parts >:)
6510 · 7m ago
It seems time to add the Times to the lists of blocked domains. If the US court thinks their data is so sensitive* everyone in the world should give up their privacy for it it would be better if no one (outside the US) has access to this sensitive* data.
My most generous guess here is that the NYT is accusing OpenAI of deleting infringing user chats themselves, because the implication that someone would delete their history due to fear of copyright infringement is completely stupid.
But OpenAI are desperately trying to spin it that the logs should not be allowed into evidence.
It's not going to stop the rise of LLMs. But one should expect it to cause a lot of very strange news in the next couple of years (lawful leaks [i.e. "discovery"], unlawful leaks, unintended leaks, etc.).
The Justice system (pretty much anywhere) is amenable to being incentivized. It looks like NYT has found the right judge (take that how you will).
I guess people could switch to one of the many chatgpt competitor that isn't being forced to give away your personal chat.
Don't even know what the time is trying to achieve now, the cat is out of the bag with LLM. Even if a judge ruled that chatgpt and other must give royalties to the time for each request, what about the ones running locally on joe's computer or in countries that don't care about American justice at all.
Infact I see it being hard to defend for OpenAI to basically say "Well yes, its standard practice to hand over any potential evidence, but no we're not doing that".
As for the deleted data, I wonder if legally there are obligations NOT to delete data ?
* not sure what the right word is