OpenAI now says in the Buckmaster-Alpöge case that no specific user data was accessed, but adds that it “cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models.”
You might have more insight into how to interpret that with the policy you mention than I do (I’m assuming they’re not misquoting ofc).
I think ultimately it depends on how the researcher was using their products. If you have a premium ChatGPT account and you’re using the web or codex attached to that account, they are training on that data.
If they purchased API credits and are using it with the API I linked docs to, they shouldn’t be consuming any of that data for training.
Both ways of using the service are near identical in terms of output they can create, but that small billing nuance carries a big impact.
I’ve not seen a technical write up of this dispute that clarifies that point though.
In the Buckmaster case
You might have more insight into how to interpret that with the policy you mention than I do (I’m assuming they’re not misquoting ofc).
I think ultimately it depends on how the researcher was using their products. If you have a premium ChatGPT account and you’re using the web or codex attached to that account, they are training on that data.
If they purchased API credits and are using it with the API I linked docs to, they shouldn’t be consuming any of that data for training.
Both ways of using the service are near identical in terms of output they can create, but that small billing nuance carries a big impact.
I’ve not seen a technical write up of this dispute that clarifies that point though.