My non tech people didn't even know that everyone can edit Wikipedia.

And to be fair to them, my motivation to send quite a lot of personal data to an LLM is shockingly high.

I send medical data to openai while I never ever send any AI provider an Image of me or my wife despite me wanting to do Star Wars montages and Studio Ghibli avatars.

I disabled Gemini Activity history because they told me that they will let humans look over it, but I gave claude access to my laptop.

There is a reason why we have consumer protection. Life doesn't need to be hard by default :D

Both sides have a point. If I ask you for feedback on the food sample I just gave you, would you automatically assume that I was recording audio and video, will be using your response in training videos, and will be used for AI training? Or might one reasonably assume the “feedback” is what is being given and not a blanket right to anything about them and their answer and using their likeness for training videos because they said “Eh.”

It seems like your counter-point is “they already use everyone’s data, why didn’t you just assume they would”, which is a bit weird from a victim-blaming perspective but valid nonetheless.

> did you not expect this conversation to go into training or at least review?

Use it for training/review (RLHF, whatever) and "we load the whole thread, not the specific response or surrounding few prompts, and store it for 5 years" seem completely different things. It's not obvious why being tech savvy would automatically make one aware that the 2nd version is happening.