I can understand training AIs on books, and even internet forums, but I can't help but think that training an AI on lots of dumb questions with probably an excessive amount of grammar and spelling errors will somehow make it smarter.
I use AI to solve problems, not to check the weather or deciding what to wear. As such it makes sense for AI to remember when it hits the nail on the head.
Rather misleading title. Missing the important “unless you ask them not to” part. Sounds like a bit of a dark pattern to push you into accepting it and that’s not cool, but you do get a choice.
You are right. To the best of my knowledge there has notbeen a way to share conversations with Anthropic, and therefore with future versions of Claudes. There was no Opt-in option as far as I know.
Straighten me out if I am wrong.
I need this opt-in to improve the foundational model that they have trained. It is good, but not good enough.
Maybe a value to users if done correctly. The way it is right now, you can't teach the model anything. When it gets something wrong, it will probably get the same thing wrong again in another chat.
I kind of already assumed they were. I've got some pretty niche use-cases that I'd like to see the models get better at thinking their way through. I benefit from their training on my interactions. So I'll opt in.
But I'll also recognize that others might not feel that way, so the services should provide a way for users to opt out.
I wonder on how much they can rely on the data and what kind of "knowledge" they can extract. I never give feedback and most time (let's say 5 out of 6) the result cc produce it simply wrong. How can they know the result is valuable or not?
Excellent. What were they waiting for up to now?? I thought they already trained on my data. I assume they train, even hope that they train, even when they say they don't. People that want to be data privacy maximalists - fine, don't use their data. But there are people out there (myself) that are on the opposite end of the spectrum, and we are mostly ignored by the companies. Companies just assume people only ever want to deny them their data.
It annoys me greatly, that I have no tick box on Google to tell them "go and adapt models I use on my Gmail, Photos, Maps etc." I don't want Google to ever be mistaken where I live - I have told them 100 times already.
This idea that "no one wants to share their data" is just assumed, and permeates everything. Like soft-ball interviews that a popular science communicator did with DeepMind folks working in medicine: every question was prefixed by litany of caveats that were all about 1) assumed aversion of people to sharing their data 2) horrors and disasters that are to befall us should we share the data. I have not suffered any horrors. I'm not aware of any major disasters. I'm aware of major advances in medicine in my lifetime. Ultimately the process does involve controlled data collection and experimentation. Looks a good deal to me tbh. I go out of my way to tick all the NHS boxes too, to "use my data as you see fit". It's an uphill struggle. The defaults are always "deny everything". Tick boxes never go away, there is no master checkbox "use any and all of my data and never ask me again" to tick.
Title is misleading, they're now opt-out rather than opt-in to your data being used for training. All you have to do is flip a single switch in the options to turn it off, I don't understand why everyone is treating this as being such a big deal.
Edit: I just logged in to opt out, they presented me with the switch directly. It was two clicks.
Odd that you are being down-voted for pointing out the easy opt-out option. I need this opt-in feature. I suppose the polarity of action could be a factor.
To be honest, these companies already stole terabytes of data and don't even disclose their dataset, so you have to assume they'll steal and train at anything you throw at them
I have never input anything into one of these tools that I wasn’t entirely comfortable with them using for training or any other reason. I just assumed it was happening.
54 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 64.6 ms ] threadStraighten me out if I am wrong.
I need this opt-in to improve the foundational model that they have trained. It is good, but not good enough.
I wonder on how much they can rely on the data and what kind of "knowledge" they can extract. I never give feedback and most time (let's say 5 out of 6) the result cc produce it simply wrong. How can they know the result is valuable or not?
It annoys me greatly, that I have no tick box on Google to tell them "go and adapt models I use on my Gmail, Photos, Maps etc." I don't want Google to ever be mistaken where I live - I have told them 100 times already.
This idea that "no one wants to share their data" is just assumed, and permeates everything. Like soft-ball interviews that a popular science communicator did with DeepMind folks working in medicine: every question was prefixed by litany of caveats that were all about 1) assumed aversion of people to sharing their data 2) horrors and disasters that are to befall us should we share the data. I have not suffered any horrors. I'm not aware of any major disasters. I'm aware of major advances in medicine in my lifetime. Ultimately the process does involve controlled data collection and experimentation. Looks a good deal to me tbh. I go out of my way to tick all the NHS boxes too, to "use my data as you see fit". It's an uphill struggle. The defaults are always "deny everything". Tick boxes never go away, there is no master checkbox "use any and all of my data and never ask me again" to tick.
Edit: I just logged in to opt out, they presented me with the switch directly. It was two clicks.