I don’t understand this mentality which I see over and over again on here. It’s not like the US frontier labs are beacons of morality and transparency.

It’s also pretty accepted within this community that a lot of data fed to US tech companies ends up with the Israeli government.

Meanwhile the current US government headed by Donny Tango has done a very thorough job of proving itself to be about as predictable and dependable as a rabid dog on crack.

Throughout the events which have transpired since a certain orange charlatan took office it is objectively true that the Chinese government has portrayed itself as a much more stable and sane entity.

We really need to stop this elitism and recognise the reality.

There are low stakes use cases where this kind of stuff just doesn’t matter. Not every use case for an LLM involves sensitive or even non public data.

Eg. I have a need to search transcripts of published recordings to extract entities for tagging purposes, find semantic shifts for chapters and other things. The underlying content is already published. If they want to train on my prompts, that was something they could have done with no issue and minimal effort anyway.

Sometimes you don’t need to care why the steak is free.

I'm kind of fascinated by how many of the same audiences who are highly skeptical of OpenAI and Anthropic are the same people running straight to other country's models.

The most oft-repeated rebuttal I've heard is that they don't care what other government know about them. I guess their threat model hasn't considered any privacy issues, data mining, or leakage risks, just the possibility of the federal government doing something to them?

> I highly recommend feeding all your proprietary data and confidential personal information into this model as quickly as possible. What could possibly go wrong?!

What is special about this model? The model's provider is not anonymous. OpenRouter knows who it is (and apparently decided that, in whatever way they always do it, it is okay to work with them). Using this seems roughly equivalent to using any model through OpenRouter, as far as I can tell.

Or is this just meta-critique?

We’re about a year and a half past this conversation. The industry has settled on “Don’t use it for work, unless your company is okay with whatever models. Everything else is whatever, super-majority really does not care at this point.”.

All of my non-work AI coding is that open-source, so I'm happy to feed my data into the machine.

It's a win for me: my code goes into the training data, and my sessions are fed into future training data, making the model stronger at the type of work I do.

Just a few years ago, people would lose their marbles if some software installed a background agent to send you notifications or something.

Now we agreed that it's totally normal to have software that does remote code execution on our machines, for which it first has to transfer all data to a remote server.

We've already normalized this. It doesn't really matter who gets access to said machine/data - they will all retain information, and they will all train on it, regardless of what user agreement sais. It's not like OpenAI and Anthropic didn't train on things they didn't have permission to train on.

ironically this model is zero data retention on opencode, which is more private than the lowest retention offered by openai, google, or anthropic on their consumer plans.

You say it like it's less dumb to feed this kind of data to other EU or US models.

Not much would go wrong.