zlacker

>>jnord+(OP)
Earlier this year I thought that rare proprietary knowledge and IP was a safe haven from AI, since LLMs can only scrub public data.

Then it dawned on me how many companies are deeply integrating Copilot into their everyday workflows. It's the perfect Trojan Horse.

>>Oarch+65
Using an LLM on data does not ingest that data into the training corpus. LLMs don’t “learn” from the information they operate on, contrary to what a lot of people assume.

None of the mainstream paid services ingest operating data into their training sets. You will find a lot of conspiracy theories claiming that companies are saying one thing but secretly stealing your data, of course.

>>Aurorn+S5
Just read the ToS of the LLM products please

>>TheRoq+2b
This is so naive. The ToS permits paraphrasing of user conversations, by not excluding it, and then training on THAT. You’d never be able to definitively connected paraphrased data to yours, especially if they only train on paraphrased data that covers frequent, as opposed to rare, topics.

>>doctor+mb
Do it have a citation for this?

>>Aurorn+Sf
“Hey DoctorPangloss, how can we train on user data without training on user data?”

“You can use an LLM to paraphrase the incoming requests and save that. Never save the verbatim request. If they ask for all the request data we have, we tell them the truth, we don’t have it. If they ask for paraphrased data, we’d have no way of correlating it to their requests.”

“And what would you say, is this a 3 or a 5 or…”

Everything obvious happens. Look closely at the PII management agreements. Btw OpenAI won’t even sign them because they’re not sure if paraphrasing “counts.” Google will.