[nullbio]

It's exactly what you've said. I'm speaking about Anthropic though, I have no idea whether OpenAI does it.

> Anthropic agrees that Customer (a) retains all rights to its Inputs, and (b) owns its Outputs. Anthropic disclaims any rights it receives to the Customer Content under these Terms. Subject to Customer’s compliance with these Terms, Anthropic hereby assigns to Customer its right, title and interest (if any) in and to Outputs. Anthropic may not train models on Customer Content from Services. “Inputs” means submissions to the Services by Customer or its Users and “Outputs” means responses generated by the Services to Inputs (Inputs and Outputs together are “Customer Content”).

This is the only commercial ToS clause about how they handle your data for subscription users. They only promise not to train the model on your exact input and exact output. There's nothing about not washing your data - the "clean-room" approach, which is obviously easily automatable by a company that specializes in automation. That is not training a model on your data, it is using a model to create derivatives of your data, then training it on "their" derivatives.

People really needs to apply pressure and start demanding answers from these companies regarding this - because it is a huge problem. Historically, the amount of labor required to do something like this would make it entirely unfeasible, so this is all new territory. The existing laws and the requirements around clarity surrounding these conditions do not reflect the technology progress.

[includenotfound]

That's in fact also very technically feasible. They're already running small classifier models on both your inputs and your outputs. These models are said to be in place for safety, but they could answer 2 questions: (1) is this a safe query, and (2) is this query about X, Y, or Z topics (which happen to be high alpha / very interesting to Anthropic).

If #2 returns a yes, the input/output are temporarily stored (say, for 30 days) while a background process cleans up PII and generalizes the prompt to be "clean", then the clean prompt that is not yours anymore is stored aside and used for training, product development, etc.

[azinman2]

Just to be clear, you’re speculating, right? They could also not be doing this.

[preg_match]

Speculation is a spectrum, and there's a probability attached. Consider these companies make it a rule to shit on IP as a concept.

If anyone, anywhere, would be doing this, it would be Anthropic and OpenAI. That doesn't mean they are, but that, to me, certainly pushes it past simple speculation.

[azinman2]

I totally get the speculative aspect. However, the entire premise of them making money off software engineering is predicated on a truthfulness of whether they use that data or not. Otherwise the Chinese models (which make no promises and do log) become more viable…

[preg_match]

I don't necessarily think it is, because of regulatory capture. We're seeing Anthropic and OpenAI try to squeeze the chinese in the courtroom more and more, and I think it's to your point: they're all doing the same things, so now they need to employ extra-business tactics to get their marketshare. I think they're hoping that Chinese models become unviable because they're literally illegal, which I don't think is very far off from happening soon. Which is bad all around, but everyone is playing dirty right now.

[nullbio]

Just to be clear, this is not speculation, it is fact.

[aesthesia]

It's absolutely speculation (unless you have specific inside information) to claim that they are doing this. It's a fact that they could be doing this.

Edit: From your other comments, you seem to be heavily insinuating that you do in fact have inside information. If you do have such information, it's not clear to me what consequences you think you are avoiding by adding this flimsy veneer of supposed deniability.