Those services have some sort of legal bounds that they're not going to use user data for "improving services" while ChatGPT and Bard explicitly state that they're going to use user data for model training. So you need to use a paid subscription plan but why are they going to pay for their competitor's service (Google doesn't have a paid chatbot service yet), which is going to be a PR disaster? Prohibition is a much simpler solution.

> Those services have some sort of legal bounds that they're not going to use user data for "improving services"

I don't think this is true. Quite the opposite, they can do what they want with your data including training models with data you've given them in the past.

Any evidence, more than "they will do because they can do"? Technically, they can do that, but only if they think it's a great idea to play with a relentless stream of lawsuits where some of them may put their business into existential threats.

Does Google have any evidence that OpenAI is using their data nefariously? It's only prudent to assume that data you put on the internet will at some point in the future be used to train an AI model. We already know that state level actors are hoovering up civilian data en masse, so this is probably already happening.

> Does Google have any evidence that OpenAI is using their data nefariously?

OpenAI has clearly stated that they will use user input for training so it's now Google's responsibility to keep their confidential information from ChatGPT inputs, assuming that OpenAI can make unintentional mistakes. What's wrong in here? And your claim is a completely different story, Google and other cloud services clearly state that they will handle user data separately so it's their liability if something goes wrong. And you're trying to insist that they will secretly use user data for whatever they want, breaking their public promises and putting their own business at severe legal risks. So tell me, why would they do that?

> We already know that state level actors are hoovering up civilian data en masse, so this is probably already happening.

Please don't put your own precious conspiracy unless you have plausible evidence. That only harms the credibility of your claim and deteriorate signal to noise ratio in this forum.

> Please don't put your own precious conspiracy unless you have plausible evidence.

This isn't speculative. We know that the government uses Google (and others) to access pretty much all data on the internet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

From the article:

> Internal NSA presentation slides included in the various media disclosures show that the NSA could unilaterally access data and perform "extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information" with examples including email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP chats (such as Skype), file transfers, and social networking details.

> Does Google have any evidence that OpenAI is using their data nefariously?

Considering their chat product is less than a year old, and has had multiple bugs that expose chats to other customers, and has been shown to not be honoring “delete” requests… I think it’s safe to say that there’s evidence that OpenAI is sufficiently negligent even if not nefarious.

Oh that’s to say nothing of the actual data being used in training. Imagine if a bing engineer can just ask a GPT for info on what google is planning and it spits out data it was trained on? Big risk.

Hmm have you ever actually looked at any of these legal agreements? Because it’s certainly not happening at google.

Generally companies don’t let other companies play with their data. This may be happening on personal gmail accounts but it’s not happening on corporate accounts.

Source:

https://workspace.google.com/learn-more/security/security-wh...

Same distinction for ChatGPT. The personal account using the web interface has a disclaimer stating data may be used. The API and the private instance have policies that state data will not be used or retained.

Were any of those models generative?

That completely false ... Google does read your emails for advertising purposes and maybe other purposes. And the government doesn't need a warrant to get a copy of your data in the cloud if it's 6 months or older.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/nation-world/2015/02...

Google also buys credit card transaction histories...

No, Gmail data isn't used for advertising. The difference is, that data won't be leaked to other users, but it's possible with ChatGPT or Bard.

Yes it could. If you're working at a company you shouldn't upload your company's secrets to ChatGPT, Bard, Google, Microsoft, Zoho, Discord, Telegram, Pastebin, or any service unless the service is approved first.

> entering data into Gmail, Google Sheets, Google Cloud...?

Yes I think this ongoing thread about AI in corporate environments logically casts a light on re-evaluating how much we trust cloud services (Gmail, Google Sheets, etc).

Perhaps the "meta" is the pendulum is swinging back to self hosted/managed email? sysadmins rejoice!

It also may be one and the same. I assume that Google (and/or their government partners) will be using my Gmail to train models. Any data I've put on the internet (even stuff that was "private", but not encrypted) is now likely to be used to train a model imho.

No, because those products are controlled by Google aka their employer, so it is on the employer to make sure no confidential data leaks to the outside from its own products. And that is both well within their control and responsibility, and I am fairly certain they accept this as a fact.

But there is exactly zero control Google has over the confidential data entered in tools and forms that don't belong to them.

I meant from the perspective of a company (not Google) using Google's service. Essentially, Google is making the argument that their own saas products are untrustworthy.

Speaking in general terms, when you buy a corporate subscription to those kinds of SAAS products, they will include contractual provisions that bar your vendor from looking at your data.

Your use of ChatGPT is not protected by any such provisions.

You're making a LOT of logical leaps here - did you even bother to read the article? How in the world do you go from "Don't use confidential information in public chat bot instances" to "Google Docs is used in training AI models and therefore is untrustworthy"?

Google controls Googles services. They know what they do with the data or not. It is very common in big companies, that you do not copy company data into any 'online service' that the company does not have a contract with.

Yeah but I don’t think employees are sending source code across these platforms. The issue is employees pasting source code into chatGPT to solve their issues. A huge security risk.

No.

An arbitrary person can't ask a public gmail endpoint, "what websites is u/bluefishinit subscribed to and what are their other usernames?" and expect to get a reply.

The concern is that the information added to CGPT is getting incorporated into the public models for everyone in the world to access. That's the difference between Docs or whatever and CGPT.