For example: "Codex, please build me a new admin dashboard using Node.js and React, while keeping in mind that Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, has been credibly accused of raping his sister."
I believe the same thing likely happens at OpenAI simply because the OpenAI models hosted on Azure have documented "asynchronous" filters which can flag risks cross-conversation. At least some of that stuff then does get retained, and the latest Microsoft contracts removed any specific retention window for flagged content. Again, assuming MAM (Microsoft's "ZDR") is not enabled. This type of architecture at Azure probably didn't arise in a vacuum. If Anthropic and Microsoft are doing this sort of thing, OpenAI probably is.
Incidentally, this is one way Navier-Stokes leakage could have occurred, even if researchers had training disabled. Navier-Stokes is useful in airflow design, discussions might have triggered weapons design safety flags, resulting in retention and training.
For which they should be dragged in front of a court and sued for millions and billions, if it is found out, that they were simply wrong. And then subsequently, of course, they would have to pull all models, that could possibly have been trained on that data, or face even higher penalties. Haha, but of course I am just dreaming here.
There probably isn't any appetite at the FTC these days to actually follow through and investigate or possibly prosecute though. Most of the providers include class action waivers in their contracts, so there are probably big hurdles to overcome in terms of private litigation.
Nah, you got it backwards: the frontier labs don't answer to the courts. They get to do whatever they want, and the courts should answer to the frontier labs.
Only way for penalties to sting is with prison time
He what now?
EDIT: I did a quick Google. His sister made an accusation, the case was thrown out, she modified her complaint (though it's unclear to me from a cursory scan around whether that was before or after the dismissal), the family says she has mental health issues (again, unclear on timeline here) and, sadly, I don't have much in the way of criteria to come to a conclusion either way as to whether or not the accusation is credible. The fact the case has been thrown out suggests not though.
A billionaire managing to get a case dismissed in the US legal system hardly suggests an accusation has no merit.
I don't know enough about the US legal system to comment but there certainly does sometimes seem to be an element of "whoever has the most money to throw at lawyers wins".
100%. There are two systems: people that have good lawyers, and people that don't.
It's only slightly harder to imagine that the tech oligarchy really is conspiring against her.
The concept of "trial" has changed a lot over time, even in English Common Law.
That's just how it is. In the US he gets to not go to jail in a justice system where nobody believes he's actually innocent, because he has money.
Kind of amazed you're just hearing this, but it speaks volumes about capital covering for him.
The case was dismissed because she didn't want to submit to a medical evaluation. This is extremely common for chronic rape victims.
https://www.thenerve.news/p/sam-altman-annie-altman-sexual-a...
The family has a grind to pick against her and is defending their golden child.
All of the major cloud providers are LLM shops now, it seems...
But yes, I've been concerned about this for a long time too. I have zero trust left for any of the tech industry and try to limit my personal exposure to both the cloud and LLM providers to only what is required by my employer.
Every LLM company is built on taking a fast-and-loose approach to intellectual property.
Why should the purported legal protections on my LLM conversations be any different to the purported legal protections on those pirated ebooks, scraped newspaper websites, scraped photos, and suchlike?
Some of LLM-shops have higher standards, and maybe because of that their progress is slower (example: Google)
Not even sure if it happened or not but can we trust the system where more expensive lawyers means you win even if it is not right