Comment by AlanYx | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlanYx | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Probably not. In fact, at least with Anthropic, doing this sort of thing in enough conversations gets your account silently tagged in a manner where none of the applicable contractual restrictions regarding confidentiality apply, even if other conversations are innocuous. This is assuming ZDR is not enabled. You can see evidence of that in Anthropic's "Detecting and countering misuse of AI: September 2026" report. Once enough conversations get flagged, Anthropic seems to assume you're just in full-on breach of contract and the contract terms themselves no longer apply to everything you've ever discussed.

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.

> Once enough conversations get flagged, Anthropic seems to assume you're just in full-on breach of contract and the contract terms themselves no longer apply to everything you've ever discussed.

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.

The FTC has issued a number of warnings to the LLM providers regarding lack of affirmative consent or shifting consent for user data handling, noting they could constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices, e.g.: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/202...

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.

Even if this happens, it would still be worth it

Only way for penalties to sting is with prison time

> 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.

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.

Incidentally by design, I'd bet. "Ooo Lean! Terrence Tao could be trying to break RSA or elliptic curve cryptography! /s" Conveniently for the PR team, we need this data to train on to make sure America has the biggest and best math.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com