> I guess law enforcement can acquire all your chat logs from OpenAI
OpenAI could also just voluntarily give it to the government.
I'm trying to find ways to articulate these fears without sounding deep in hyperbole but it's undeniable that the current US government has authoritarian desires. When I look at all these services I'm forced to think "if push came to shove, would they stand up for my rights?", and I just don't have a lot of faith in the current tech giants.
Even Radio Shack, during their bankruptcy proceedings, argued that users gave their addresses, phone numbers, and names only for Radio Shack marketing. The judge in the case dismissed that terms of service, and then proceeded to order a sell of that information.
So yeah, the current AI company, whichever one we look at may be ethical and keep everything private. They could be anti-enshittification and do everything right. But all it takes is 1 bad CEO, or a board who wants more money, or a PE firm come in and bankrupt them... and all that data is out in the open.
That's why I run my own LLMs, abliterated (uncensored), and clean up my history when I'm done. I don't trust these companies with my deep secrets, or with back-and-forth that may reveal parts of me I don't want revealed.
But for the public clouds, I don't care if they know I'm uploading an image of various Asian writing and ask for a transliteration and translation. Or simple powershell crap, or "linux tool that can do $thing". Im reasonably sure simplistic question/answer with no further back and forth, is probably safe.
He's publicly and explicitly aligning himself with a religiously ultranationalist tendency, declaring an absurdly oppressive and aggressive narcoterrorist state to be a "miracle" that he's "extremely proud of".
Clearly he has a deep fear of equality and democracy, and considers the labour other people provide him with under the threat of misery and starvation to be his indisputable right to decide over.
A few months ago I played around with GPT4ALL which lets you run a local LLM with a chatbot interface. Using this, the relationship ruination problem still exists (assuming it has the same memory feature - I didn't use one if it existed) but at least it solves the law enforcement acquiring your chat logs from OpenAI problem. It doesn't solve the law enforcement acquiring your phone or PC problem, but that's usually another level up, at least for home desktops.
Yeah but even for something like 70B llama 3 you're looking at thousands of dollars of capital for something you can pay $20 a month for a generation ahead. So you have to ask "how many $$$$ is my privacy worth?" Vs just choosing not to have a relationship with an LLM
If a person assumes that there is any information storage on the internet, not securely encrypted with keys only available to himself, that is not easily available to the law enforcement - or anybody else with enough budget - that person is dangerously naive. Of course data sent out to the internet will be available to everybody with powers to compel data disclosure - and also everybody with abilities to circumvent the protections.
The practical short answer is yes, yes it will. It is not privileged communication. It is not considered private since you have left it on a third party server. It is discoverable via legal process to the third parties that retain the chat log.
The same goes for communications on any social media or public forum, including discussions here on HN.
That wasn’t the thought exercise. Of course third party data can be accessed by a subpoena. The thought exercise is about digital hygiene and being careful with what you feed the databases.
My informal use of private missed the mark in a strict legalistic sense. We are on the same page about email left on the server being subject to subpoena.
For everyone else, unless you use POP3 to download your email to your own personal device and remove it from the server, the email left on the server is not as protected under US law as emails that are fully downloaded to your device. The later requires a search warrant to acquire without your consent.
> Under the ECPA, emails lose their status as protected communication in 180 days. After that time, a warrant is no longer necessary. Law enforcement can access your emails through a simple subpoena.
Which is so stupid, there's a probably a million examples of this exact pattern. It is crazy that courts have decided that people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy for data that is otherwise kept secret with multiple locks, and guards at the door. Clearly people expect it to be kept private, it's more protected than their house.
If I ask Alice to store my
diary for me and keep it secret it seems obvious to everyone except law enforcement that you should have to get a warrant and serve it to me before getting it from her.
In my country, the concept is that your data is private until an investigator can convince a judge to provide a warrant. The judge theoretically serves the role of the person’s privacy advocate. Once a warrant is provided, specific items included within the warrant are no longer considered private.
But regardless of the memory setting in ChatGPT, I guess law enforcement can acquire all your chat logs from OpenAI.
I guess what I'm saying is that while, yes, you could ask ChatGPT about this analysis, the true culprit is the actual data stored about you.