|
|
|
|
|
by lxgr
109 days ago
|
|
This seems to be the source report: https://openai.com/index/disrupting-malicious-ai-uses/ (since it would of course kill CNN, like almost all media outlets, to link to a non-affiliated primary source...) Does this level of detail seem strange to anybody else? Shining such a strong light on OpenAI's moderation/manual review efforts seems like it would draw unwanted attention to the fact that ChatGPT conversations are anything but private, and seems somewhat at odds with their recent outrage about the subpoena for user chats in the NYT case. Manual reviews of sensitive data are ok as long as their own employees are the reviewers, I suppose? |
|
> By examining request metadata, we were able to trace these accounts to specific researchers at the lab.
> The volume, structure, and focus of the prompts were distinct from normal usage patterns
Clearly some employees of Anthropic personally looked at individual inputs and outputs of their API