Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Last month, the federal judge preserved all ChatGPT data indefinitely within a steady copyright claim. In response, Openai, “Sweeping, unprecedented Nizam”, said he violated the confidentiality of his users, he applied to cancel the decision.
New York Times claim In both Openai and Microsoft, in 2023, the companies have violated the articles to train their own language models and violate the copyright. But Openai gossip Times’ claim is “the” law “and defended” fair use of training. “
Before that, OpenAi only kept chat logs for ChatGpt users for free, plus and not choosing Pro users. However, in May and other news organizations claimed Openai was engaged in the destruction of “significant, sustainable” records that could evidence of copyright violations. The judge responded to him by ordering to protect and separate all the Chatgpt records wanted to delete, otherwise.
In the court, Openai defended the prevention of Wang’s command[s] Openai for the attitude of users to the confidential decisions. “According to Ars Technic, the company also did not destroy the” Times “,” Openai “,” Openai did not want to delete any information in response to the trial. “
“The [Times] Other bidders made an unreasonable and unnecessary demand for us, “Coo Brad Lightcap gossip in a statement. He added that all information to Openai has long been “leaving the standards of privacy and weakens the protection of privacy.”
In X, SAM Altman in CEO “Inappropriate inquiry … wrote that he set a bad precedent.” He stressed the need for the “needed” ei privileges, such as “as a lawyer speaking with a lawyer or doctor talking to the doctor.”
We recently think of something like “AI privilege”; It really accelerates that you need a conversation.
Talking to an AI, imo should be like talking to a lawyer or doctor.
I hope the society will understand this soon.
– Sam Altman (@sama) 6 June 2025
The court decision caused the starting wave of panic. ARS TECHNICA, the trial of the Openai court, showed social media posts from LinkedIn and X, expressing concerns of users’ privacy. In LinkedIn, they warned the information about the information they share with Chatgept to customers with Chatgept. In another example, someone tweeted, “Wang probably thinks of each @Openai user confidentiality of NY Times’ Boomer Copyright. Insane !!!”
On the one hand, I could not imagine that there was a sensitive information to a chatgpt entry for reading one. However, people behave like a therapist, the recommendation of life and even a romantic partner. Regardless of the same thing in person, they deserve the right to keep this content private.
At the same time, Times’ work is not like Openai claims. It is worth discussing how artificial intelligence is taught. Remember in ClearView AI He broke 30 billion pictures To teach Facebook to be recognized? Or indicate that fEDeral government uses images of sensitive people To test the facial recognition program? Yes, those examples are available outside the journalism and copyright law. However, it emphasizes that companies such as Openai need negotiations on needing an open agreement to use the content more than they want from the Internet.
