zlacker

"...will not use...to train..." (emphasis mine)

They'll do inference all day long, but not train without consent. Only being slightly paranoid here, but they could still analyze all of the audio for nefarious reasons (insider trading, identifying monetizable medical information from doctor's on Zoom, etc). Think of the marketing data they could generate for B2B products because they get to "listen" and "watch" every single meeting at a huge swath of companies. They'll know whether people gripe more about Jira than Asana or Azure Devops, and what they complain about.

>>pseudo+(OP)
This is really important, and I would further emphasize the word our. Zoom doesn't need permission to "train" their own in-house artificial intelligence model when it can just transmit/sublicense that data to someone else who will train a model, or to an internal team who will use it (perhaps in few-shot prompts at scale, which is not technically training a model!) for "consulting services" in the broadest sense that that team can imagine.

I generally feel like the general slowdown of capital availability in our industry will lead/is leading to companies doing a lot more desperate things with data than they've ever done before. If a management team doesn't think they'll survive a bad couple of quarters (or that they won't hit performance cliffs that let them keep their jobs or bonuses), all of a sudden there's less weight placed on the long-term trust of customers and more on "what can we do that is permissible by our contract language, even if we lose some customers because of it." That's the moment when a slippery ethical slope comes into play for previously trustworthy companies. So any expansion of a TOS in today's age should be evaluated closely.

>>btown+6d
> If a management team doesn't think they'll survive a bad couple of quarters (or that they won't hit performance cliffs that let them keep their jobs or bonuses)

Agreed, and these kinds of short-term incentives are one of the problems with American companies. On the flip side...

Japanese companies think about products in decades -- the product line has to make money 10 years from now.

Some old European brands think about their brand in centuries -- this product made today has to be made with a process and materials that will make people in 100 years think that we made our products at the highest quality that was available to us at the time.

>>bonest+mk
Got any data to back this up or are you just spouting racist tropes?

>>callal+cq
Making generalized claims about companies is racist now? I must've missed the memo.

I guess it makes sense. Companies are people, after all

>>pseudo+(OP)
But don’t overlook how easy it is for them to bury obtaining consent in a 40 page agreement. It almost makes the things you highlighted moot.

>>bonest+mk
This is overly broad generalization that does not hold up to scrutiny.

Konami vs Kojima and any of the DieselGate companies come to mind.

>>hobo_i+py
They're not making claims about companies, they're making claims about cultures (American, European, Japanese).

>>tremon+eJ1
No.

> American companies.

> Japanese companies

> Some old European brands

Unless the parent comment was edited, of course.