undefined | Better HN

0 pointslcnPylGDnU4H9OF11mo ago0 comments

You linked this article:

https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/22/openai-accidentally-delete...

Gruez said that is talking about an incident in this case but unrelated to the judge's order in question.

You said the article "explains for those following this conversation why it’s been elevated to a court order" but it doesn't actually explain that. It is talking about separate data being deleted in a different context. It is not user chats and access logs. It is the data that was used to train the models.

I pointed that out a second time since it seemed to be misunderstood.

Then you posted an LLM summary of something unrelated to the point being made.

Now we're here.

As you say, one cannot force understanding on another; we all have to do our part. ;)

Edit:

> The court order to retain all user data is a direct response to concerns that important evidence could be lost—just as it was in the accidental deletion incident[2][6][7].

What did you prompt the LLM with for it to reach this conclusion? The [2][6][7] citations similarly don't seem to explain how that incident from months ago informed the judge's recent decision. Anyway, I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, I'm saying the article you linked does not support the conclusion.

0 comments

ofjcihen11mo ago

I think in your rush to reply you may have not read the summarization.

Calm down, cool off, and read it again.

The point is that the circumstances of the incident in 2024 are directly related to the how and why of the NYT lawyers request and the judges order.

The article I linked was to the incident in 2024.

Not everything has to be about pedantry and snark, even on HN.

Edit: I see you edited your response after re-reading the summarization. I’m glad cooler heads have prevailed.

The prompt was simply “What is the relation, if any, between OpenAI being ordered to retain user data and the incident from 2024 where OpenAI accidentally deleted the NYT lawyers data while they were investigating whether OpenAI had used their data to train their models?”

lcnPylGDnU4H9OFOP11mo ago

> I see you edited your response after re-reading the summarization.

Just to be clear, the summary is not convincing. I do understand the idea but none of the evidence presented so far suggests that was the reason. The court expected that the data would be retained, the court learned that it was not, the court gave an order for it to be retained. That is the seeming reason for the order.

Put another way: if the incident last year had not happened, the court would still have issued the order currently under discussion.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse