[ofjcihen]

I think in your rush to reply you may have not read the summarization.

Calm down, cool off, and read it again.

The point is that the circumstances of the incident in 2024 are directly related to the how and why of the NYT lawyers request and the judges order.

The article I linked was to the incident in 2024.

Not everything has to be about pedantry and snark, even on HN.

Edit: I see you edited your response after re-reading the summarization. I’m glad cooler heads have prevailed.

The prompt was simply “What is the relation, if any, between OpenAI being ordered to retain user data and the incident from 2024 where OpenAI accidentally deleted the NYT lawyers data while they were investigating whether OpenAI had used their data to train their models?”

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> I see you edited your response after re-reading the summarization.

Just to be clear, the summary is not convincing. I do understand the idea but none of the evidence presented so far suggests that was the reason. The court expected that the data would be retained, the court learned that it was not, the court gave an order for it to be retained. That is the seeming reason for the order.

Put another way: if the incident last year had not happened, the court would still have issued the order currently under discussion.