They've been to court and they've lost and it definitely hasn't destroyed their business one bit.
For example, Microsoft subsidiary LinkedIn routed customer email through their servers so that they could scrape it. They did that without customer knowledge via a dark patten.
They later apologised for doing it but still used it to propel the company's growth. In the end it didn't hurt anything but their reputation for respecting people's privacy.
Microsoft's own anti-trust history is littered with exceptional behaviour too. They are the size they are now by dint of super aggressive business practices.
Why wouldn't sw companies do the same?
None.... so the grandparents comment is with out evidence that either consumers or regulators hold companies to account
I guess if they can do that, then what's a small lie about private repos between friends.
We’ll get engineers working long hours focused on it, consulting closely with our legal and trust teams. One of the first questions we ask legal when we suspect a privacy issue is “Is this a notifiable event?”
It’s not really about getting slapped by regulators - it’s the fact that much of Microsoft’s business is built by earning the trust of large companies and small ones. Many of them are in the EU of course, but we have strict compliance we apply broadly. It’s just not worth damaging our reputation (and hurting our business) for some shortcut somewhere, as trust takes a long time to build and is easily broken.
This type of thing erodes trust? Why should my proprietary code be used for training by default?
I was really annoyed by this.
I'm talking about when using "Github Copilot" and you ask for a code suggestion, it would send the "context" back to GitHub / Microsoft and use that code as training.
Your comment is interesting to me though because there does seem to be a surprisingly large amount of defending OpenAI going on. Almost seems automatic now.
