The illusion of a borderless world has faded. The comfortable notion of "global citizenship" was a fleeting artifact of American dominance. As new realities emerge, the vital concept of state security demands far greater vigilance than in decades past.
This is not jingoism, it's a clear-eyed assessment of our world. In this new reality, we can no longer afford the naivete of sharing our most valuable assets with nations who oppose us.
Warmongers will never cease to monger war, I guess. What you've written is massively jingoistic; yes certain forces seem oddly desperate to talk a war into existence - I guess all those solar panels coming out of CN are disrupting certain money flows on a permanent-looking basis - but the absence of any actual, idk, military buildup will be harder to explain away. Unless you just deepfake the war. Which is probably what will happen.
Why are you conflating the concept of "nation" with that of a "state"? These are two words with different meanings. This just strikes me as meaningless friction to cause domestic arms production.
You can geolocate a user/request based on the IP address. This is common in servers. It allows a server to know which country a request is coming from.
I suspect that this is what OpenAI are doing, as Bing Translate and Google Translate do similar things.
>> The only way Microsoft or OpenAI would know this would be to spy on chatbot sessions. I’m sure the terms of service—if I bothered to read them—gives them that permission. And of course it’s no surprise that Microsoft and OpenAI (and, presumably, everyone else) are spying on our usage of AI, but this confirms it.
What? The chatbot is not your therapist. The chatbot is Microsoft. They are the same entity. Everything shared with the chatbot is shared with microsoft, just as every google search is shared with google.
I don't trust Microsoft as far as I can throw them collectively but it doesn't come as a surprise to me that they are doing this any more than it would if I were to hear that OpenAI, Google, etc... are engaging in this behavior.
That's not to excuse it, however. I think it's already time they all implemented a privacy stance where they are only allowed to view chat conversations if the user gives them explicit and revokable permission.
Many cloud providers maintain the pretence that their employees don't have access to customer data.
For example, they like to maintain that if you run an amazon competitor hosted on AWS, amazon insiders can't look at sales numbers in your hosted database. Or if you run a google competitor with e-mail hosted on gmail, that google insiders can't view your e-mails. And so on.
Personally I've always found these promises rather hard to believe, but a lot of people have a great deal of trust in them.
I worked for a large cloud provider and that is correct, employees did not have access to customer data. The encryption key in this product is split between a SQL database and the front end servers with blob data being stored outside of SQL (customer data). There was no way for a single employee to get access to both portions of the key to decrypt customer data.
Using AWS when you're a competitor of Amazon seems like poor business decision making.
If you call this "spying", you should read the TOS of the OpenAI API again. If you, as a "hacker", still use their API, it's your own fault:
> OpenAI may securely retain API inputs and outputs for up to 30 days to provide the services and to identify abuse. After 30 days, API inputs and outputs are removed from our systems, unless we are legally required to retain them. You can also request zero data retention (ZDR) for eligible endpoints if you have a qualifying use-case. For details on data handling, visit our Platform Docs page.
I'd assume Azure's TOS does not allow foreign secret services to use it for its operations. I remember TOS of iTunes mentioned you can't use it to build nuclear bombs. In that sense, there's no way that what Microsoft did was illegal.
I’ve managed a very large tenant with a number of carve out T&C. I’m aware of at least a dozen times that settings reverted during upgrades or migrations. O365 is a huge service with a lot of humans and duct tape holding things together.
These are not all that unique and pretty common across all cloud services, GCP, AWS, Azure included. Especially in the spectrum of their ML/AI services.
> only when we have your permission or are required to by law
That can be very vague. does TOS gave them the permission? Does law can eb interpreted to require them to check for CSAM and pirated material? What about access by Iran or North Korea agents? If you are pushing things to cloud, these questions will be asked.
Anyone who cares will heed this language and not use them in the first place. For everyone else, Google's reputation as a "secure" place to host your proprietary files, docs, and emails will be flushed away if they cooperate with (foreign, mostly) law enforcement or have such a glaring security vulnerability that allows an org's files to leak from Google servers.
My wife teaches English. She uses Google docs revision history to spy on her students writing (and occasionally to recover it in the event of a disaster). So if it's plagiarized, she can see the moment where they pasted the plagiarized version.
They apparently have no idea.
So yeah, I think that people legit don't understand. The gap between tech literate and hacker is problematically large.
I increasingly feel like a member of some kind of high priest or scribe class in a feudal society, and I don't like it. I don't like where this is going.
It'll either end in a dark cyberpunk total surveillance and mass manipulation state or a kind of Butlerian Jihad where people reject networked cybernetic systems en masse. Maybe the first happens followed by the second.
As nothingburgers go, this is pretty tame and expected. You use a platform that entirely runs on a hosted back end, you’re going to have everything logged and saved.
Compare that to, say, Nvidia, who sends every single titlebar value, as well as every single click you make to their servers (this data sends even if you opt out, as it is classified as “necessary”). Probably the most invasive spyware you have installed today.
You should know that if you're interacting with an AI tool through various social channels – facebook, twitter, instagram, texting – those chats are not only being actively read by the employees of that company, but anyone who is responsible for the 'marketing' of that company, e.g. outside vendors.
Certainly these firms are bound by contract, but the stuff I've seen people ask these chatbots – health information, sexual information, highly personal stuff you might only share with your shrink... well, it's being read by the 22 year old marketing intern as well. Unencrypted, in the clear, copy & paste'able, and attributable to your username/ID
I love how the user made "Microsoft is spying on users of its AI tools" from "Microsoft found out that hostile governments of authoritarian countries use their AI tools to conduct illegal activities" and forgot that you legit have to click "Yes, I agree" under the terms and conditions that state they indeed do track all this stuff.
Next up, "Major television broadcasters spy on soccer players during Champions League games".
Informed consent is key. Do they clearly inform you of this when using these tools or is it hidden in a dense Privacy Policy somewhere with language so vague and woolly most people hardly understand it, which you "accepted" when you first installed Windows?
I don't have a Windows machine and didn't check, but I'm guessing it's a lot closer to the second than the first.
In principle I don't think anything is "wrong" with keeping a record of AI chat sessions, but you do need to know about it so you can modify your behaviour as you see fit (i.e. ask different questions). If there's a camera pointed at you then some might decide that the nose is best left unpicked and those balls will have to remain unscratched.
This is really the problem with a lot of these things: not that they're doing these things as such, but that it's so hidden and obfuscated that you need to spend an hour or more trying to understand it, and even then you only know what they "may" do, not what they "actually" do – a lot of these privacy policies are so vague and full of qualified language that they "may" do almost anything.
And even in recording conversations there's nuance. Is this recorded with your full account detail, or is that information stripped? Are all conversations recorded or only some? Etc. etc.
He'a referring to an idea that sounds nice in theory and doesn't work in practice.
It's a common English phrase.
And the phrase works well, the concept of informed concept sounds good in theory and never works in practice.
Anyone who has observed tech companies for decades knows they don't ask for your consent before they make any consequential changes. Tech companies do whatever they want until they get sued or regulated. It's always been this way.
My appologies. I think informed consent is a wonderful idea, I just am skeptical that it exists in real life. I would say if you use an electronic device today, you are being spied on (with very narrow exceptions).
Informed consent to me (take the example of a phone or many apps), based on the level I have to break it down to people for them to understand, is something like "we will see you whacking it to hentai, we will know when you take a dump, we have enough of your data to derive private information you never gave us, we have all the data necessary to totally ruin your life socially and economically, and it will all be leaked to criminals that will profit from your demise, dont worry though, we will give you a 1 year sub to mcafee antivirus as a consolation prize."
I think we can at least agree that ^^that happens to people. So, whos going to be the first company to not veat around the bush and just admit that reality? That, is why I say informed consent sounds nice, every company that can keep a skilled contract lawyer on payroll has an incentive to downplay their spying. I dont know in what version of reality informed consent could exist, because the incentive is fairly obvious.
Another important ingredient of informed consent is that there are realistic, viable alternatives. Those alternatives may have downsides, but if those downsides are so large as to become crippling, they stop being realistic and viable.
That is often a crucial issue in these discussions around big tech, enshittification, and so on.
Yes, it depends on the specifics though. "Simply don't use any AI tools" is a viable alternative, IMHO.
But "simply don't use Windows" is already a lot more tricky, because so much of the world runs on it. You and I can get away with just running Linux, but we're not normal people in this regard.
Meh; I think it's the reverse and that more and more people will find that automating these type of tasks is not actually a good thing because unlike automating manual labour, there is value in doing the work yourself, as that is the only way to have a profound and deep understanding of things.
By analogy, consider mental arithmetic vs. electronic calculators and spreadsheets.
Being able to do mental arithmetic is an important skill, arguably the only way to have a profound and deep understanding of many things. At the same time, calculators and spreadsheets allow an individual to do things that just would be totally out of reach without these tools.
Some people argue that generative AI has already reached this point, and I think that's plausible in a few narrow domains. It's also plausible that the domains to which it applies keep broadening.
You don't. But it means that the title of the story is correct as worded: if you do use those tools, you are getting spied on. The fact that you're warned about that somewhere in the TOS doesn't change the fact, and the story is basically correct.
I think the word "spy" is problematic here because one might assume that the subject being spied on must be unaware of the fact, otherwise you no longer qualify as "being spied on".
That's actually a fantastic example of the difference between actually owning something and not: I am absolutely allowed to modify my car in any way I please, including installing a ignition bypass.
> Next up, "Major television broadcasters spy on soccer players during
Champions League games".
I strongly agree with you that this story is a nothingburger.
But as I note your reaction, I take a different interpretation. The
implication that statements like "Microsoft spies on X" are truisms,
is the news. We obviously all now accept as a given that these are
tautologies.
In other words "Spies spy on X" -> (is to say) "Microsoft = spies",
not just in this sentence/context, but in all contexts.
Terms, conditions, legality, illegality, hostility or friendliness all
recede into irrelevance hereafter.
Just because it's obvious to us doesn't mean it's obvious to everybody.
The alarmist headline is warranted, and the fact that it's common doesn't make it acceptable. I welcome more awareness of this kind of lopsided ToS that enables such user hostile actions.
The whole excuse OpenAI gave for going proprietary was specifically that they could spy on you and use that to reactively adjust GPT's alignment training.
For what it's worth, the US military is also evaluating LLMs in the same way the Chinese and Russian hackers are. I imagine - or at least hope - they aren't using OpenAI's hosted ChatGPT and are getting copies of models they can run on SIPRNET or JWICS.
Anyone using these tools is asking for all their data to be hoovered up. Locally powered AI is the only way to use it if you care about this kind of thing.
More like "Most Big-Tech and VC-funded companies spy on users. That's how exploiting customers for profit works."
Many of the privacy apps and services I use explicitly set out to collect as little information as possible. It's sad that people have been conditioned to think spying is appropriate or that it has to be this way for the internet to "work".
I do not like M$' behavior in general but this is almost certainly not spying.
The OP seems to think that because the users region was recorded its spying on sessions. With a self righteous "I didn't read the TOS but This just confirms it".
Microsoft would obviously be recording region metrics, maybe even keyword/request trends. None of this information is identifiable and makes complete sense to be monitoring for improvement on a new product area.
A more precise yet general headline: “Microsoft is spying on users”
It’s nearly impossible to install their products without opting into layers of spyware and adware cloaked in dark patterns and requiring extraordinary measures to back out of hidden spyware installs done without permission. Microsoft has always been a fairly malignant business, built in shenanigans of various sorts, and as the market perfects new shenanigan vectors they’re right there pushing the envelope.
What are the “layers of spyware and adware cloaked in dark patterns and requiring extraordinary measures to back out of hidden spyware installs done without permission” in Office 365?
What are the “layers of spyware and adware cloaked in dark patterns and requiring extraordinary measures to back out of hidden spyware installs done without permission” in Windows 11?
Everything you type in the start menu gets sent to microsoft by default and this can only be changed with Group Policy, so anyone on home edition is stuck with that.
Thanks for giving me an answer, all the other posts in this chain just seem to be people naming Microsoft products (I get it, people love bashing Microsoft...)
There’s also a lot of extensive details of the dark patterns in the installers where no means yes with the privacy preserving option hidden behind rolled up options etc. Even then you need to do other patches to avoid telemetry and data collection. Even then you end up with ads surfaced in the start menu, etc.
In this specific instance, I think it is necessary to make a distinction because given the direction things are headed, spied upon is tautological in the context of AI. AI-as-a-service requires sending private details to gain utility and there is a real risk this is the only kind of AI that will be allowed to exist. GPT4 was most probably used given they stated this action was taken in collaboration with OpenAI and so the emphasis on Microsoft was likely used as engagement bait by the blog author. In truth, Microsoft probably put this out to advertise how they take steps to keep AI safe. Unfortunately, this will also be ammunition for those who seek to ban opensource AI, you can only do this kind of thing with Monitored AIs.
Even if you're not an adversarial government leaning on it as a hacking enhancement, it's only a matter of time till governments worldwide demand certain controversial conversational topics be reported to law enforcement. I suspect the Knight Paladins of Anthropic would be more than eager to further this greater cause for the Safety of mankind.
From the start, since all but a few services are using your data to improve their models there is already no notion of privacy. The ethical ones will eventually (if not already) report suspicious activity (as determined by law) to law enforcement and the less ethical ones will report all activity to advertising and insurance agencies.
Some already lobby to ban opensource AI because enhancing the learning rate and reducing the friction of gaining new information for humanity without controlling oversight will also enhance hackers or other bad actors ability to access sanctioned knowledge. They consider this a heresy and deem humanity at large incapable of responsibly handling such increases in cognitive ability. Only a few Adept can be trusted with administering AI. Truly, spying is among the more trivial concerns for the future of computing, given AI's compute heaviness and the amount of centralizing control it engenders by default.
> In truth, Microsoft probably put this out to advertise how they take steps to keep AI safe. Unfortunately, this will also be ammunition for those who seek to ban opensource AI, you can only do this kind of thing with Monitored AIs.
This is exactly how the OpenAI blog post reads between the lines: “We work with the government to make the world safe. Or else.”
The actual “bad” tasks “bad guys” performed were no different that what one can accomplish with Google searches. But no one talks about stopping terrorists to use Google.
I've posted it before, but when I saw that Microsoft Defender sends your files to be inspected, and has no audit history of what goes from your computer to their servers, I installed Linux.
In Windows' "Virus and threat protection" settings there is the following checkbox (defaults to enabled):
Automatic sample submission
Send sample files to Microsoft to help protect you and others from potential threats.
We'll prompt you if the file we need is likely to contain personal information.
Regarding that last sentence, it is not documented what they consider "likely to contain personal information".
My bar was at there being absolutely no history of files being sent over. What if they are sending highly classified files / software or private IP over without my knowing?
The darkest pattern is that employers use microsoft software as your tools for employment.
This seems to violate all kinds of boundaries between your personal and professional life.
Most people as they mature learn how important boundaries are to health and well-being, as a child or teen growing up, as a partner, as a parent, and with friends and community.
People don't need this mess too.
There is no clear way to opt out of this, to create and maintain a boundary and to say no.
The White House’s AI regulatory order requires big cloud providers to monitor for and report foreign clients (ie Chinese) for using their services to train AI fyi. Monitoring for malicious activity isn’t nearly as invasive as what the government is requiring
oddly, top ranking AI research in the world right now comes from Stanford USA+Wuhan PRC .. this is trivially verified.
Intelligent commentary will need to differentiate between public cooperation layers, non-public cooperation layers, and non-public adversarial layers .. because, they are all active.. all of those.
While we are on this topic — can someone, anyone, tell me how to disable the AI autocompletion suggestions in Outlook for iOS? Getting ready to dump Microsoft and Exchange to get away from that utter mess.
Perhaps some of the people who are commenting here don’t realize that there isn’t much of a way to opt out of these data “analysis” activities.
Why did Microsoft build their AI lab in China, then?
Sounds like Microsoft sold the US citizens out to China and are now trying to play the victim card while adding Russia to the blame.
Say what you want about conspiracy theories but China and Bill Gates seem to be afraid of women to the point where they have chosen to try to eradicate them from society. Maybe the rumors are true about Bill Gates' attempt to make little girls infertil via vaccination.
Imo bad story piece to cover up the recent Microsoft hacks done by "state actors".
This has nothing to do with MS spying on user ai tool usage.
Admit it MS, you got hacked, service accounts and executive emails were leaked, along with who knows what else, and you "caught them" after damage was done.
Why waste time on performative outrage about how services that require a login have our data and use it in ways we'll never know? You have to accept it as a given and move on in order to start asking the right questions.
Like, are we letting ourselves be herded towards a future where it's normalized that all search must be done by authenticated users, and "classic search" is effectively deprecated ten years from now?
155 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 211 ms ] threadThis is not jingoism, it's a clear-eyed assessment of our world. In this new reality, we can no longer afford the naivete of sharing our most valuable assets with nations who oppose us.
I suspect that this is what OpenAI are doing, as Bing Translate and Google Translate do similar things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
P.S.: As a reminder, metadata is typically more informative than data.
What? The chatbot is not your therapist. The chatbot is Microsoft. They are the same entity. Everything shared with the chatbot is shared with microsoft, just as every google search is shared with google.
Related legal determination re chatbots:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2024/02/18/air-canada-...
That's not to excuse it, however. I think it's already time they all implemented a privacy stance where they are only allowed to view chat conversations if the user gives them explicit and revokable permission.
All joking aside, and even as the article points out re: the T+Cs, is anybody surprised?
For example, they like to maintain that if you run an amazon competitor hosted on AWS, amazon insiders can't look at sales numbers in your hosted database. Or if you run a google competitor with e-mail hosted on gmail, that google insiders can't view your e-mails. And so on.
Personally I've always found these promises rather hard to believe, but a lot of people have a great deal of trust in them.
Using AWS when you're a competitor of Amazon seems like poor business decision making.
Or, better, who isn't a competitor and is also not at risk of becoming one?
> OpenAI may securely retain API inputs and outputs for up to 30 days to provide the services and to identify abuse. After 30 days, API inputs and outputs are removed from our systems, unless we are legally required to retain them. You can also request zero data retention (ZDR) for eligible endpoints if you have a qualifying use-case. For details on data handling, visit our Platform Docs page.
Source: https://openai.com/enterprise-privacy
I’ve managed a very large tenant with a number of carve out T&C. I’m aware of at least a dozen times that settings reverted during upgrades or migrations. O365 is a huge service with a lot of humans and duct tape holding things together.
Unless you’re auditing them, you have no idea.
I don't think these TOS are out of this world.
Compare with the Google Docs privacy policy, for example:
https://support.google.com/docs/answer/10381817?hl=en
> Google respects your privacy. We access your private content only when we have your permission or are required to by law.
I think it is reasonable to expect the same from LLM API providers. The fact that they all currently do mass surveillance on users is bad.
That can be very vague. does TOS gave them the permission? Does law can eb interpreted to require them to check for CSAM and pirated material? What about access by Iran or North Korea agents? If you are pushing things to cloud, these questions will be asked.
If you're sending the data to someone else's computer and it's not encrypted, you're.... sending the data to someone else's computer.
Do people not understand this?
They apparently have no idea.
So yeah, I think that people legit don't understand. The gap between tech literate and hacker is problematically large.
It'll either end in a dark cyberpunk total surveillance and mass manipulation state or a kind of Butlerian Jihad where people reject networked cybernetic systems en masse. Maybe the first happens followed by the second.
I'd rather retire of unremarkable means in a functioning society than be wealthy in a dystopia of my own making.
Not sure how this is a surprise.
Compare that to, say, Nvidia, who sends every single titlebar value, as well as every single click you make to their servers (this data sends even if you opt out, as it is classified as “necessary”). Probably the most invasive spyware you have installed today.
Certainly these firms are bound by contract, but the stuff I've seen people ask these chatbots – health information, sexual information, highly personal stuff you might only share with your shrink... well, it's being read by the 22 year old marketing intern as well. Unencrypted, in the clear, copy & paste'able, and attributable to your username/ID
Was the internet designed to be private?
Next up, "Major television broadcasters spy on soccer players during Champions League games".
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...
You don't have a 'right' to use the services. So the answer to your question is "It depends if the service lets you, so 9/10 cases, no. Rightly so"
Edit : I can see a lot of people don't like this. But like it or not, right or wrong, that is how it is. Expecting anything else is just fanciful.
I don't have a Windows machine and didn't check, but I'm guessing it's a lot closer to the second than the first.
In principle I don't think anything is "wrong" with keeping a record of AI chat sessions, but you do need to know about it so you can modify your behaviour as you see fit (i.e. ask different questions). If there's a camera pointed at you then some might decide that the nose is best left unpicked and those balls will have to remain unscratched.
This is really the problem with a lot of these things: not that they're doing these things as such, but that it's so hidden and obfuscated that you need to spend an hour or more trying to understand it, and even then you only know what they "may" do, not what they "actually" do – a lot of these privacy policies are so vague and full of qualified language that they "may" do almost anything.
And even in recording conversations there's nuance. Is this recorded with your full account detail, or is that information stripped? Are all conversations recorded or only some? Etc. etc.
sounds nice
He'a referring to an idea that sounds nice in theory and doesn't work in practice.
It's a common English phrase.
And the phrase works well, the concept of informed concept sounds good in theory and never works in practice.
Anyone who has observed tech companies for decades knows they don't ask for your consent before they make any consequential changes. Tech companies do whatever they want until they get sued or regulated. It's always been this way.
Informed consent to me (take the example of a phone or many apps), based on the level I have to break it down to people for them to understand, is something like "we will see you whacking it to hentai, we will know when you take a dump, we have enough of your data to derive private information you never gave us, we have all the data necessary to totally ruin your life socially and economically, and it will all be leaked to criminals that will profit from your demise, dont worry though, we will give you a 1 year sub to mcafee antivirus as a consolation prize."
I think we can at least agree that ^^that happens to people. So, whos going to be the first company to not veat around the bush and just admit that reality? That, is why I say informed consent sounds nice, every company that can keep a skilled contract lawyer on payroll has an incentive to downplay their spying. I dont know in what version of reality informed consent could exist, because the incentive is fairly obvious.
That is often a crucial issue in these discussions around big tech, enshittification, and so on.
But "simply don't use Windows" is already a lot more tricky, because so much of the world runs on it. You and I can get away with just running Linux, but we're not normal people in this regard.
By analogy, consider mental arithmetic vs. electronic calculators and spreadsheets.
Being able to do mental arithmetic is an important skill, arguably the only way to have a profound and deep understanding of many things. At the same time, calculators and spreadsheets allow an individual to do things that just would be totally out of reach without these tools.
Some people argue that generative AI has already reached this point, and I think that's plausible in a few narrow domains. It's also plausible that the domains to which it applies keep broadening.
I strongly agree with you that this story is a nothingburger.
But as I note your reaction, I take a different interpretation. The implication that statements like "Microsoft spies on X" are truisms, is the news. We obviously all now accept as a given that these are tautologies.
In other words "Spies spy on X" -> (is to say) "Microsoft = spies", not just in this sentence/context, but in all contexts.
Terms, conditions, legality, illegality, hostility or friendliness all recede into irrelevance hereafter.
The alarmist headline is warranted, and the fact that it's common doesn't make it acceptable. I welcome more awareness of this kind of lopsided ToS that enables such user hostile actions.
For what it's worth, the US military is also evaluating LLMs in the same way the Chinese and Russian hackers are. I imagine - or at least hope - they aren't using OpenAI's hosted ChatGPT and are getting copies of models they can run on SIPRNET or JWICS.
If you use a modern MS product, you are sending them lots of data, full stop.
Many of the privacy apps and services I use explicitly set out to collect as little information as possible. It's sad that people have been conditioned to think spying is appropriate or that it has to be this way for the internet to "work".
The OP seems to think that because the users region was recorded its spying on sessions. With a self righteous "I didn't read the TOS but This just confirms it".
Microsoft would obviously be recording region metrics, maybe even keyword/request trends. None of this information is identifiable and makes complete sense to be monitoring for improvement on a new product area.
I can’t tell if this article is parody or not, and that’s concerning, haha
It’s nearly impossible to install their products without opting into layers of spyware and adware cloaked in dark patterns and requiring extraordinary measures to back out of hidden spyware installs done without permission. Microsoft has always been a fairly malignant business, built in shenanigans of various sorts, and as the market perfects new shenanigan vectors they’re right there pushing the envelope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DONKEY.BAS
https://simeononsecurity.com/github/optimizing-and-hardening...
There’s also a lot of extensive details of the dark patterns in the installers where no means yes with the privacy preserving option hidden behind rolled up options etc. Even then you need to do other patches to avoid telemetry and data collection. Even then you end up with ads surfaced in the start menu, etc.
Even if you're not an adversarial government leaning on it as a hacking enhancement, it's only a matter of time till governments worldwide demand certain controversial conversational topics be reported to law enforcement. I suspect the Knight Paladins of Anthropic would be more than eager to further this greater cause for the Safety of mankind.
From the start, since all but a few services are using your data to improve their models there is already no notion of privacy. The ethical ones will eventually (if not already) report suspicious activity (as determined by law) to law enforcement and the less ethical ones will report all activity to advertising and insurance agencies.
Some already lobby to ban opensource AI because enhancing the learning rate and reducing the friction of gaining new information for humanity without controlling oversight will also enhance hackers or other bad actors ability to access sanctioned knowledge. They consider this a heresy and deem humanity at large incapable of responsibly handling such increases in cognitive ability. Only a few Adept can be trusted with administering AI. Truly, spying is among the more trivial concerns for the future of computing, given AI's compute heaviness and the amount of centralizing control it engenders by default.
This is exactly how the OpenAI blog post reads between the lines: “We work with the government to make the world safe. Or else.”
https://openai.com/blog/disrupting-malicious-uses-of-ai-by-s...
The actual “bad” tasks “bad guys” performed were no different that what one can accomplish with Google searches. But no one talks about stopping terrorists to use Google.
This seems to violate all kinds of boundaries between your personal and professional life.
Most people as they mature learn how important boundaries are to health and well-being, as a child or teen growing up, as a partner, as a parent, and with friends and community.
People don't need this mess too.
There is no clear way to opt out of this, to create and maintain a boundary and to say no.
Intelligent commentary will need to differentiate between public cooperation layers, non-public cooperation layers, and non-public adversarial layers .. because, they are all active.. all of those.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
Perhaps some of the people who are commenting here don’t realize that there isn’t much of a way to opt out of these data “analysis” activities.
Sounds like Microsoft sold the US citizens out to China and are now trying to play the victim card while adding Russia to the blame.
Say what you want about conspiracy theories but China and Bill Gates seem to be afraid of women to the point where they have chosen to try to eradicate them from society. Maybe the rumors are true about Bill Gates' attempt to make little girls infertil via vaccination.
This has nothing to do with MS spying on user ai tool usage.
Admit it MS, you got hacked, service accounts and executive emails were leaked, along with who knows what else, and you "caught them" after damage was done.
Like, are we letting ourselves be herded towards a future where it's normalized that all search must be done by authenticated users, and "classic search" is effectively deprecated ten years from now?
Everyone of these platforms is scraping your inputs to train their next model.
How is it not obvious they would also detect abuse?