Openi and some users oppose the court order that the company must keep the entire chat of all Chatgpt, which is part of the copyright case, claiming that the said record is “Mass surveillance programs nationwide” the court has not been moved by the ONA Wang judge, which initially issued an order to collect all data from the popular Chatbot, rejecting many requests to overturn the decision. -Although it is open to fight with the next command According to Art Technica–
Attempts to end up keeping the chat continuously and the data comes from two Chatgpt users. Filed The business owner who uses the Chatgpt within his company workflow work and claims that the order may reveal. “Business operations that are secret, trade, trading, source code and intellectual property development.” Wang denied that the company did not hire a lawyer to draft documents. By Ars Technica–
another please Return to the use of users from users who claim that they sometimes “highly sensitive personal and commercial information” during the use of the users claim that all the records will create a “mass monitoring program nationwide” and may be harmful to “users of all Chatgpt” that they do not know whether their messages will be stored.
The Wang Judge was not moved either. “The proposed intervention does not explain that the order of the court's documents that supervise the conservation, separation and storage of some personal hero data by private companies for the purpose of the prosecution limit or may be a mass surveillance project nationwide. write In response to demands
The argument of the palace is generally, while her order wants Chatgpt to hang everything, including the negative chat records. But it does not mean that it will be revealed to the public Quite preserved for this in particular and will be used only in relation to it, and Openai is expected to continue to fight the command while the case goes forward.
But at least the trial should act as the leader of the Chatgpt and other chat bots: your conversation is not guaranteed to be private. While at least one user tries to make the case of a judge who creates a lot of surveillance networks But it may be worthwhile to consider that it is a possibility of technology.