> 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
The level of detail does not seem surprising. they're both charged with maintaining a facade of privacy while eliminating any and all miss-use. Certainly they heavily analyze basically everything given to them.
And generally as a society we've been ok with basically zero privacy as long as the data we send stays inside the company we sent it too. Google reads all your emails? Sure thing, read away, just don't send them to the popo. Apple knows when you're ovulating? no problem, just don't tell Amazon. etc
Other than that the approach in general is weak, most people likely generate lots of noise themselves. It's just about that one time you asked about X.
If you've ever ran a SaaS business, you know this and you know you can have "God Mode" access to everything, even if you swear up and down that you don't/won't.
The owners of these models aren't your friends, they see you as objects. They want to take as much value as they possibly can from you and will starve you if/when the option appears. That includes selling and sharing whatever data they have on you to the highest bidders, and some of those bidders want scapegoats to parade around as domestic terrorists.
The fact that companies are willing to send their IP and business processes to entities that can easily launder it and out compete them is mind-boggling, as well.
When contracting out manufacturing, it's common sense to spread across manufacturers, so no single manufacturer has everything. They may have half a shell. Or an peripheral module without the core. Or a core without anything around it.
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?