OpenAI (and other services) log and preserve your interactions, in order to either improve their service or to provide features to you (e.g., your chat history, personalized answers, etc., from OpenAI). If a court says "preserve all your user interaction logs," they exist and need to be preserved.
DDG explicitly does not track you or retain any data about your usage. If a court says "preserve all your users interaction logs," there is nothing to be preserved.
It is a very different thing - and a much higher bar - for a court to say "write code to begin logging user interaction data and then preserve those logs."
OpenAI also claims to delete logs after 30 days if you've deleted them. Anything that you've deleted but hasn't been processed by OpenAI yet will now be open to introspection by the court.
>> It seems obvious that it is harmful for a user who requests and is granted privacy to then have their private messages delivered to NYT.
This ruling is about preservation of evidence, not (yet) about delivering that information to one of the parties.
If judges couldn't compel parties to preserve evidence in active cases, you could see pretty easily that parties would aggressively destroy evidence that might be harmful to them at trial.
There's a whole later process (and probably arguments in front of the judge) about which evidence is actually delivered, whether it goes to the NYT or just to their lawyers, how much of it is redacted or anonymized, etc.
>> Negligence doesn't make sense because it was the VCs own money
Almost definitionally, VCs are investing someone else's money (the people providing the capital are called the "limited partners" (LPs); the VCs who raise and invest the money are "general partners" (GPs).) The LPs are often pension funds, university endowments, and charitable organizations.
Yes, GPs do typically have a capital contribution requirement, but it's generally in the area of 1% of the fund, so the vast majority of what VCs are investing is other people's money, for which they definitely have fiduciary responsibility.
>>> Grifters exist, but not everyone is a grifter.
>> Capitalism rewards dishonesty.
> It's a wonderful thing that no other economic systems reward dishonesty.
This is a whataboutism. To rephrase, "all economic systems reward dishonesty." - That's the point. Saying not every market participant is a grifter is a form of denial.
I think it's worth remembering that Hacker News is a global platform and if someone refers to "major cities" in Denmark, for many (most?) readers, the only name that would come to mind is Copenhagen.
Again: That is why I wrote major cities - I wouldn't expect anybody to know.
Again - why this extreme focus on the specifics? I merely argued that the housing market in the broader Denmark is reasonable, and you can usually easily commute to jobs in a city while living cheaply - something that is strictly more difficult in the US.
Because from the point of view of the rest of the world, there aren't any major cities in Denmark other than Copenhagen...
Saying that there is cheap housing 20 minutes outside of a town with 64K people doesn't really make the point that it's inexpensive and accessible to live in / near major cities.
I've actually spent a week in Copenhagen relatively recently and I literally couldn't have named another city in the country. My bad, I know, but I'm pretty well-traveled and that's the truth.
reply