the copyright case did something i haven’t seen discussed much. a court ordered every chatgpt log preserved, deleted chats included, paid tiers included. users who tried to intervene to protect their own conversations were ruled non-parties, no standing over things they’d personally typed. every AI privacy commitment is a policy. we don’t train on it, we delete after 30 days. real promises. but a policy holds only until something with more authority overrides it, and when that happened the people whose data was on the line didn’t get a vote. so the question isn’t whether they train on your data. it’s whether they hold anything that ties a conversation back to you at all. no identity-linked log, nothing to preserve, nothing to hand over. apple does this with private cloud compute. opengradient’s chat does it too, oblivious http so the relay sees your ip but not the content and the gateway sees the content but not your ip, then inference inside an attested enclave. they’re a16z-crypto-backed with a token, which is worth knowing. what i can’t judge: if one operator runs both the relay and the gateway, does the split mean anything? attestation proves which code loaded, not that the hardware root of trust is sound, so you’re trusting a chip vendor instead of a policy. is that actually better, or just trust moved somewhere harder to check submitted by /u/AccomplishedFix9584
Originally posted by u/AccomplishedFix9584 on r/ArtificialInteligence