▲ 958 ▼ Microsoft Word documents will be saved to the cloud automatically on Windows going forward (www.ghacks.net) submitted 1 year ago by simple@piefed.social to c/technology@lemmy.world 313 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] diptchip@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children) Not to be used to train AI. We promise... permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] lemmysquezzy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) LLM's out here running wild. How Rude.Maybe I should switch to Linux again. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (4 children) They'd break SO MANY international and data security laws if they tried breaking into people's OneDrive, it'd be hilarious to see the number of lawsuits they'd lose by default. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] shneancy@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (3 children) they're probably already doing that to a smaller degree, and slightly protecting themselves with an obscure clause in their TOS. besides, you only lose lawsuits if you get caught - and churning things through AI is a great way to erase any fingerprints that identifies stolen data permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) they’re probably already doing that to a smaller degree, and slightly protecting themselves with an obscure clause in their TOS As soon as you find proof, you have literally free money up for the taking at any court. you only lose lawsuits if you get caught - and churning things through AI is a great way to erase any fingerprints that identifies stolen data That's... not how any of this works.......... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shneancy@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) an obscure clause in TOS won't be a small print of an evil villain speech exposing their plot in clear wording. what it would be is something worded vaguely enough to make things seem like the end user technically agreed to what was being done, it could also be an "and" where you expected "or", or an ommision of a specific thing... my point being - it's always going to be a technicality that in case of a lawsuit would be a valid defence in the eyes of law it very much is how it works though? show me a lawsuit someone lost before they got caught commiting a crime. and how would you even go about proving that your unpublished documents were used to train AI? even an entire life's work of one person is just a speck in the training data, it's impossible to definitively prove your work was stolen and used to train an AI. besides there will always be plausible deniability that the AI just made shit up that happened to look kinda like what you once wrote permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago an obscure clause in TOS won’t be a small print of an evil villain speech exposing their plot in clear wording. what it would be is something worded vaguely enough to make things seem like the end user technically agreed to what was being done That means nothing. Illegal terms can't be enforced in contracts or terms of service. it’s always going to be a technicality that in case of a lawsuit would be a valid defence in the eyes of law No. Written law always takes precedence. If they spied on your data stored in OneDrive, they'd lose by default the moment the case hit the courthouse. As for your second paragraph: yeah, I agree. If they did that, the damage would've already been done. But it would kill the business once found out. The benefit is not worth the risk. For example: you're saying that they would use it to train AI, right? They don't train AI. They get a trained model from OpenAI. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lemmysquezzy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) LLM's out here running wild. How Rude.Maybe I should switch to Linux again. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (4 children) They'd break SO MANY international and data security laws if they tried breaking into people's OneDrive, it'd be hilarious to see the number of lawsuits they'd lose by default. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] shneancy@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (3 children) they're probably already doing that to a smaller degree, and slightly protecting themselves with an obscure clause in their TOS. besides, you only lose lawsuits if you get caught - and churning things through AI is a great way to erase any fingerprints that identifies stolen data permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) they’re probably already doing that to a smaller degree, and slightly protecting themselves with an obscure clause in their TOS As soon as you find proof, you have literally free money up for the taking at any court. you only lose lawsuits if you get caught - and churning things through AI is a great way to erase any fingerprints that identifies stolen data That's... not how any of this works.......... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shneancy@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) an obscure clause in TOS won't be a small print of an evil villain speech exposing their plot in clear wording. what it would be is something worded vaguely enough to make things seem like the end user technically agreed to what was being done, it could also be an "and" where you expected "or", or an ommision of a specific thing... my point being - it's always going to be a technicality that in case of a lawsuit would be a valid defence in the eyes of law it very much is how it works though? show me a lawsuit someone lost before they got caught commiting a crime. and how would you even go about proving that your unpublished documents were used to train AI? even an entire life's work of one person is just a speck in the training data, it's impossible to definitively prove your work was stolen and used to train an AI. besides there will always be plausible deniability that the AI just made shit up that happened to look kinda like what you once wrote permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago an obscure clause in TOS won’t be a small print of an evil villain speech exposing their plot in clear wording. what it would be is something worded vaguely enough to make things seem like the end user technically agreed to what was being done That means nothing. Illegal terms can't be enforced in contracts or terms of service. it’s always going to be a technicality that in case of a lawsuit would be a valid defence in the eyes of law No. Written law always takes precedence. If they spied on your data stored in OneDrive, they'd lose by default the moment the case hit the courthouse. As for your second paragraph: yeah, I agree. If they did that, the damage would've already been done. But it would kill the business once found out. The benefit is not worth the risk. For example: you're saying that they would use it to train AI, right? They don't train AI. They get a trained model from OpenAI. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (3 children) they're probably already doing that to a smaller degree, and slightly protecting themselves with an obscure clause in their TOS. besides, you only lose lawsuits if you get caught - and churning things through AI is a great way to erase any fingerprints that identifies stolen data permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) they’re probably already doing that to a smaller degree, and slightly protecting themselves with an obscure clause in their TOS As soon as you find proof, you have literally free money up for the taking at any court. you only lose lawsuits if you get caught - and churning things through AI is a great way to erase any fingerprints that identifies stolen data That's... not how any of this works.......... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shneancy@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) an obscure clause in TOS won't be a small print of an evil villain speech exposing their plot in clear wording. what it would be is something worded vaguely enough to make things seem like the end user technically agreed to what was being done, it could also be an "and" where you expected "or", or an ommision of a specific thing... my point being - it's always going to be a technicality that in case of a lawsuit would be a valid defence in the eyes of law it very much is how it works though? show me a lawsuit someone lost before they got caught commiting a crime. and how would you even go about proving that your unpublished documents were used to train AI? even an entire life's work of one person is just a speck in the training data, it's impossible to definitively prove your work was stolen and used to train an AI. besides there will always be plausible deniability that the AI just made shit up that happened to look kinda like what you once wrote permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago an obscure clause in TOS won’t be a small print of an evil villain speech exposing their plot in clear wording. what it would be is something worded vaguely enough to make things seem like the end user technically agreed to what was being done That means nothing. Illegal terms can't be enforced in contracts or terms of service. it’s always going to be a technicality that in case of a lawsuit would be a valid defence in the eyes of law No. Written law always takes precedence. If they spied on your data stored in OneDrive, they'd lose by default the moment the case hit the courthouse. As for your second paragraph: yeah, I agree. If they did that, the damage would've already been done. But it would kill the business once found out. The benefit is not worth the risk. For example: you're saying that they would use it to train AI, right? They don't train AI. They get a trained model from OpenAI. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) they’re probably already doing that to a smaller degree, and slightly protecting themselves with an obscure clause in their TOS As soon as you find proof, you have literally free money up for the taking at any court. you only lose lawsuits if you get caught - and churning things through AI is a great way to erase any fingerprints that identifies stolen data That's... not how any of this works.......... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] shneancy@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) an obscure clause in TOS won't be a small print of an evil villain speech exposing their plot in clear wording. what it would be is something worded vaguely enough to make things seem like the end user technically agreed to what was being done, it could also be an "and" where you expected "or", or an ommision of a specific thing... my point being - it's always going to be a technicality that in case of a lawsuit would be a valid defence in the eyes of law it very much is how it works though? show me a lawsuit someone lost before they got caught commiting a crime. and how would you even go about proving that your unpublished documents were used to train AI? even an entire life's work of one person is just a speck in the training data, it's impossible to definitively prove your work was stolen and used to train an AI. besides there will always be plausible deniability that the AI just made shit up that happened to look kinda like what you once wrote permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago an obscure clause in TOS won’t be a small print of an evil villain speech exposing their plot in clear wording. what it would be is something worded vaguely enough to make things seem like the end user technically agreed to what was being done That means nothing. Illegal terms can't be enforced in contracts or terms of service. it’s always going to be a technicality that in case of a lawsuit would be a valid defence in the eyes of law No. Written law always takes precedence. If they spied on your data stored in OneDrive, they'd lose by default the moment the case hit the courthouse. As for your second paragraph: yeah, I agree. If they did that, the damage would've already been done. But it would kill the business once found out. The benefit is not worth the risk. For example: you're saying that they would use it to train AI, right? They don't train AI. They get a trained model from OpenAI. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) an obscure clause in TOS won't be a small print of an evil villain speech exposing their plot in clear wording. what it would be is something worded vaguely enough to make things seem like the end user technically agreed to what was being done, it could also be an "and" where you expected "or", or an ommision of a specific thing... my point being - it's always going to be a technicality that in case of a lawsuit would be a valid defence in the eyes of law it very much is how it works though? show me a lawsuit someone lost before they got caught commiting a crime. and how would you even go about proving that your unpublished documents were used to train AI? even an entire life's work of one person is just a speck in the training data, it's impossible to definitively prove your work was stolen and used to train an AI. besides there will always be plausible deniability that the AI just made shit up that happened to look kinda like what you once wrote permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago an obscure clause in TOS won’t be a small print of an evil villain speech exposing their plot in clear wording. what it would be is something worded vaguely enough to make things seem like the end user technically agreed to what was being done That means nothing. Illegal terms can't be enforced in contracts or terms of service. it’s always going to be a technicality that in case of a lawsuit would be a valid defence in the eyes of law No. Written law always takes precedence. If they spied on your data stored in OneDrive, they'd lose by default the moment the case hit the courthouse. As for your second paragraph: yeah, I agree. If they did that, the damage would've already been done. But it would kill the business once found out. The benefit is not worth the risk. For example: you're saying that they would use it to train AI, right? They don't train AI. They get a trained model from OpenAI. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago an obscure clause in TOS won’t be a small print of an evil villain speech exposing their plot in clear wording. what it would be is something worded vaguely enough to make things seem like the end user technically agreed to what was being done That means nothing. Illegal terms can't be enforced in contracts or terms of service. it’s always going to be a technicality that in case of a lawsuit would be a valid defence in the eyes of law No. Written law always takes precedence. If they spied on your data stored in OneDrive, they'd lose by default the moment the case hit the courthouse. As for your second paragraph: yeah, I agree. If they did that, the damage would've already been done. But it would kill the business once found out. The benefit is not worth the risk. For example: you're saying that they would use it to train AI, right? They don't train AI. They get a trained model from OpenAI. permalink fedilink source parent