Opelai Conal ‘Sweeping’ Sweeping sweeping, not self-denounced ‘requires save all chatgpt logs
Last month, the Federal Judge ordered Opelai to maintain all the details of the Chatgt as part of a continuous copyright. In response, Openai entered the transfer to the “Funeral Organization, which has never been seen” violates the privacy of its users.
The New York Times acciders both Opelai and Microsoft by 2023 for companies to violate the rights to publish its titles to train its language models. However, Openai said the Times’ case was not worth it “and argued that training fell under” Fair Used “.
Earlier, the Opena is only stored the chatgpt user-free logs, as well as, and the MBo who did not leave. However, in May, times and other organizations that Salandai organizations are involved in “continued” destruction of chat logs that can have evidence that copyright violation. Judge Anna Wang replied to order Chatgt to save and distinguish all chatgpt logs to be removed otherwise.
In the Court of Court, Opena denies that Wang’s Order “Protect[s] Open by respecting the privacy of its users. “According to ARS Technica, the company also said that the suspicions were ‘fairly’ ‘fairly’, wrote,” Openaai did not crazy ‘any data, and certainly did not remove any data to answer drug events. The order looks like it’s wrong. “
“The [Times] And some of the complainants have made the necessary and unnecessary need in their unspoken case, “said COO Brad lamp in a statement.
On X, CEO Sam Altman wrote that “wrong application … sets a bad example.” He also added that the case highlights the need for “No right” when “talking to AI should be as speaking with a lawyer or doctor.”
We have been thinking recent about the need for something like “NE-GIVER”; This really speeds the need to have a conversation.
IMO speaks with AI should be like talking to a lawyer or doctor.
I hope the public will get it soon.
– Sam altman (@sama) On June 6, 2025
The court order empowered the first wave that fears. Per Ars Technica, Fillings of Court Overai Cits Media posts from LinkedIn and X when users express concern about their privacy. On LinkedIn, one person warned their customers to be careful about “carefully” about what information they had to share with Chatgpt. For another example, someone photograph, “Wang is clearly thinking that the NY Times Times’ Boomer Copyright affects the privacy of all user of @ Openai !!!
On the other hand, I couldn’t imagine having a critical chatgpt log in enough data to care if someone else read it. However, people use Chatgpt as a cure, with the counsel of life, and even treat it as a partner. No matter what I do the same, they deserve the right to keep the content of the content private.
At the same time, the case ‘that case is not baseless as Openai claims. It is definitely worth discussing how an artificial intelligence is trained. Remember when Clearview AI was fired 30 billion photos from Facebook to train its face recognition? Or reports that the Kingdom government uses pictures of people who are at risk for facial acceptance software? Yes, those examples are available without journalism and copyright law. However, it highlights the need for discussion about how the companies need clear consent to use content rather than whatever they want on the Internet.
