Are users who deliberately skirt paywalls ever shy about it? Since when?
Just set up your own account, bypass a paywall, save that chat log.
This seems completely unnecessary.
I don't know what ChatGPT uses to browse web but it wouldn't surprise me if it repeated stuff from those paid articles because it uses wget or something similar that doesn't support js and therefore the paywalls weren't effective.
If they simply put all their content behind a paywall entirely and effectively then this would be a non-issue.
If ChatGPT is getting this content it's literally because they allow it.
There's nothing contradictory about this? Plenty of companies give free access to journalist/reviewers/influencers, with the hope that they'd draw in paying customers. Wanting to only give free access to certain people isn't "want to have their cake and eat it to". It's standard business practice and well within the rights of publishers/rights holders to do.
They don't want ChatGPT to do certain things after accessing it and they don't prevent access by ChatGPT. They don't mind if ChatGPT accesses it.
You can search, browse and continue your chats 100% offline.
It’s free while in beta https://testflight.apple.com/join/RJx6sP6t
If you think this is scary you should see what google has been doing for a decade.
https://openai.com/index/response-to-nyt-data-demands/
That official response was discussed on this website yesterday. Here is a link to the discussion:
This does not impact API customers who are using Zero Data Retention endpoints under our ZDR amendment.”
The court order seems reasonable. OpenAI must retain everything is can, and has not promised not to, retain.
> The court order seems reasonable.
Checks out.
In this case, however, there is a simple solution if OpenAI doesn’t want to save data: don’t retain it in the first place. If OpenAI committed to privacy as a value, their protests would have merit. But in this case it sounds like they want the ability to retain the data as well as delete it despite being in the midst of litigation. That’s simply not a privilege anyone is afforded by the courts. (We’re also talking about the Times versus a $100+ bn tech giant whose CEO has direct lines to heads of state. There is no David to default sympathy to.)
Now, the promise is still to not train on API inputs/outputs, but the retention promise is nowhere to be found, unless you're an Enterprise customer (ZDR).
Moreover, at least in my understanding of the order, the court ordered them to keep ALL, not "all unless for those you promised not to keep":
> OpenAI is NOW DIRECTED to preserve and segregate all output log data that would otherwise be deleted on a going forward basis until further order of the Court (in essence, the output log data that OpenAI has been destroying), whether such data might be deleted at a user’s request or because of “numerous privacy laws and regulations” that might require OpenAI to do so.
So in effect, the statement you quoted is false, and OpenAI is actually in breach of their privacy policies.
I asked ChatGPT to parse this in case I misunderstood it, and its interpretation was:
> The company is ordered to preserve all output log data that would otherwise be deleted, going forward, regardless of the reason for deletion (user request, privacy law, default retention policy, etc.).
> In other words: They must stop deleting any output log data, even if it would normally be deleted by default or at a user's request.
> This is more than just keeping data they would normally retain — it's a preservation order for data they would otherwise destroy.
As a result, OpenAI is now unusable for serious business use in Europe. Since the competition (Anthropic, Google) is not affected by this court order, the only loser here is OpenAI.
The statement is from OpenAI’s own press release. I still wouldn’t argue that their lies somehow make the court order unreasonable.
> OpenAI is now unusable for serious business use in Europe
This is entirely in OpenAI’s control. They could convert everyone in the EU to ZDR. They choose not to, and that’s their right. (As it is the right of the EU to deem that noncompliance.)
Impositions like this, of course, put the rent-seeking in people's faces -- but privilege always remains, pending a court order or an executive demand. It feels that there's mass loss of patience with this, a kind of "lay anarchism" that is presently across the popular internet. Many are exhausted at the power which accrues to AI companies from the non-consensual theft of the online social commons. Others, at political censorship. Others, at the secruity state. And so on. But it's all directed towards the same privilege made possible by internet centralisation.
Who will channel this politically, where it will go -- of course -- isn't clear at the moment. The anger at this seems febrile, and its more than some fussy libertarians. The economic conditions of egregious rent-seeking and the political conditions of mass control are visible to the people. It all seems a little mid-19th C.
It was a distraction from tax policy. Raising regressive taxes on imports, cutting services to the poor and cutting taxes on the rich.
The elites after the French Revolution were not only mostly the same as before, they escaped with so much money and wealth that it’s actually debated if they increased their wealth share through the chaos [1].
If America started teetering towards a meltdown-type revolution, the first folks to move in would be foreign powers.
When "delete" actually means "hide from my view", you can only hope that you live in a country with strong privacy and data protection laws.
IMO hard deleting things is generally a bad practice until the user wants to delete their entire account or some other very explicit action is executed.
I expect that the big tech companies have all kinds of cold storage backups and no one is going to actually go spelunking in those archives to physically delete my data when I delete an email. It's more likely that they will delete the keys to decrypt it, but even the keys must be safely stored somewhere, so it's the same problem just with less data.
I do, but presumably that doesn’t matter, as the US thinks its legal code outweighs the legal code for Europeans living in Europe. Jokes on Europeans for allowing Americans to take over the world stage for too long, I suppose.
So how does this work with services using the API like Copilot or Cursor?
Is OpenAI now storing all the code sent to the API?
gnabgib•10h ago