Haha. I am 100% these companies will ignore this if they choose to. Just as they played fast and loose with copyright rules.

They would do it, the say “ah sorry chaps, impossible to extract it from the dataset by now, anyway we anonymized it so can’t tell what’s what, and we can’t risk losing to China. Oh look - did you see Superman fly outside?”.

European users have right to be forgotten. Waiting for the court order to delete all models.

This form is legally binding and has more legal weight than just clicking a toggle. If they still train on my data, they can get sued, and I'll get a payout.

How would you prove they trained on your data specifically?

Showing that a novel mathematical approach was in your prompts shortly before the model “proposes” that approach to relative amateurs would be ideal, if only we had a case like that…

and still they denied it - it only shows that we have little recourse.

It’s possible that they didn’t train on it, and the approach was derived by the LLM.

What’s a problem is that they haven’t outright denied it. That could be caution and them doing their due diligence first, it could be that it was intentional and they didn’t expect to get caught, or it could be because they have no way of knowing themselves.

Fighting legally against one of the richest companies in existence, with the entire American apparatus behind it, is a brave move

The world is pretty pissed at the u.s. and seeking sovereign models and ai. Richest or not if the companies are wise they will try a bit not to piss off the entire rest of the world. At this point many countries are willing to cut off the u.s. even if they take a short or medium term hit.

Are there any precedents that companies got sued on this? Not that I doubt you, but it would be nice to see if it actually has teeth or not.

As legaly binding as all the data the license and ToS of which they ignored when scrapping - before trying to sell it back with an eternal subscription to their plagiarism machine ?

> but there is a better way to do it.

This looks incorrect. OpenAI have flat out said that there's no need of doing this and both ways are equivalent

> We respect our users' choice whether to use their data to “improve our models for everyone” regardless of where they express that choice. Users can opt out in the in-app settings or indeed also in our privacy portal. They do not need to opt out in both places, and we will make this clearer in our Help Center.

https://x.com/thsottiaux/status/2097746417012166816

Even if that's true right now, if one of the options is legally binding and the other is "we promise not to eat your data... for now", the first option is still better.

so what option do you leave them with? they are giving both alternatives and clearly stating both do the same thing underneath. there's literally nothing else they could have done here.

Option A can be accidentally undone with a few clicks.

Option B is legally binding and permanent.

I get it, but what option does OpenAI have here other than to present the two options?

They're not equivalent.

The one in ChatGPT settings only applies to ChatGPT. The one on the OpenAI privacy portal applies to all OpenAI products, present and future.