Generally, this disclaimer is required for products that are released under the "Google" name but without any kind of support guarantees for enterprise customers.
That or it's a personal project that IARC decided could live in the workspace project.
It's interesting that they're choosing to do this broadcast in Japanese considering that everyone living in that region (that's Japanese), would likely speak Arabic or English, and they could help more people by broadcasting that those languages.
Glad to know my tax dollars are doing something better than just harassing people to pay fees.
While the idea is noble, the press release states:
"This measure is based on NHK’s mission as an international public service media to provide essential information to Japanese nationals residing in or traveling in the region."
Broadcasting in English or Arabic isn't going to be of much use to Japanese nationals.
In general, Japanese are not very comfortable in using English. Thus for safety and critical information, broadcasting in their native language would feel much more trustworthy, reassuring and connected than any other language.
Sony's problem is that they have garbage marketing teams that don't understand that 99% of people don't look at a spec sheet, they ask the employee at the shop for the best phone, which is gunna be the one that gets the employee the most commission.
In Japan, they already have that with Docomo, AU, and Softbank. But they've failed to materialize that strategy outside of here.
It’s a non-clause that is written to sound like they are doing something to prevent these uses when they aren’t. “You are not allowed to do illegal things” is meaningless, since they already can’t legally do illegal things. Plus the administration itself gets to decide if it meets legal use.
> “You are not allowed to do illegal things” is meaningless, since they already can’t legally do illegal things.
That's not quite right.
First off, I don't expect that "you used my service to commit a crime" is in and of itself enough to break a contract, so having your contract state that you're not allowed to use my service to commit a crime does give me tools to cut you off.
Second, I don't want the contract to say "if you're convicted of committing a crime using my service", I want it to say "if you do these specific things". This is for two reasons. First, because I don't want to depend on criminal prosecutors to act before I have standing. Second, because I want to only have to meet the balance of probabilities ("preponderance of evidence" if you're American) standard of evidence in civil court, rather than needing a conviction secured under "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. IANAL, but I expect that having this "you can't do these illegal things except when they aren't illegal" language in the contract does put me in that position.
I don’t think the language does, or is intended to, give OpenAI any special standing in the courts.
They literally asked the DoD to continue as is.
Their is no safety enforcement standing created because their is no safety enforcement intended.
It is transparently written, as a completely reactive response to Anthropic’s stand, in an attempt to create a perception that they care. And reduce perceived contrast with Anthropic.
If they had any interest in safety or ethics, Anthropic’s stand just made that far easier than they could have imagined. Just join Anthropic and together set a new bar of expectations for the industry and public as a whole.
They could collaborate with Anthropic on a common expectation, if they have a different take on safety.
The upside safety culture impact of such collaboration by two competitive leaders in the industry would be felt globally. Going far beyond any current contracts.
But, no. Nothing.
Except the legalese and an attempt to misleadingly pass it off as “more stringent”. These are not the actions of anyone who cares at all about the obvious potential for governmental abuse, or creating any civil legal leverage for safe use.
The Trump administration acts cartoonish and fickle. They can easily punish one group, and then agree to work with another group on the same terms, to save face, while continuing to punish the first group. It doesn't have to make consistent sense. This is exactly how they have done with tariffs for example.
Secondly, the terms are technically different because "all lawful uses" are preserved in this OpenAI deal, and it's just lawyering to the public. Really it was about the phrase "all lawful uses", internally at the DoD I'm sure. So the lawyers were able to agree to it and the public gets this mumbo-jumbo.
I thought mass surveillance of Americans was unlawful by the DoD, CIA and NSA? We have the FBI for that, right? :)
Sure, but OpenAI is also being disingenuous here pretending they’re operating under the same principles Anthropic is. It’s not and the things they’re comfortable with doing Anthropic said they’re not
> except for all of the laws that allow you to do these things.
It's even worse than that, because this administration has made it clear they will push as hard as possible to have the law mean whatever they says it means. The quoted agreement literally says "...in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control" - "Department policy" is obviously whatever Trump says it is ("unitary executive theory" and all that), and there are numerous cases where they have taken existing law and are stretching it to mean whatever they want. And when it comes to AI, any after-the-fact legal challenges are pretty moot when someone has already been killed or, you know, the planet gets destroyed because the AI system decide to go WarGames on us.
Kagi _does_ use Google results, but they also have their own index, as well as search filters to curate _your_ search result. Makes it easier to cut out the garbage.
> There's an entire mesh of metrics that are used to calculate your relation to separate accounts.
> It's the confidence tolerance that keeps you and your partner from getting banned together.
Thanks for that bit of info, the degree of disgusting that google would be tracking who people's partners are is off the scale invasive and should be a reason for an immediate complaint to the various data privacy authorities.
Thus spake the Googler... sorry, but I think I understand it just fine, I think it is you that is not understanding it properly but since your salary depends on not understanding it properly I won't blame you for that.
> google would be tracking who people's partners are
is a misunderstanding of that comment. Nothing they said implies that Google is tracking who people's partners are. You're welcome to have whatever opinions you are about companies, but I'd also hope that you're careful not to read conspiracies into places where they aren't stated, especially in about institutions you have preconceptions about.
Whether it is tracked explicitly or implicitly, the idea that there is a matrix that establishes your linkage to other accounts is the bit that I take issue with because the conclusion for me is that Google is able to infer things about the people they hold data on that they never ever should have access to.
If you have a credible alternative explanation of what it does mean then you are welcome to supply that but instead you are making statements that are unverifiable:
> Nothing they said implies that Google is tracking who people's partners are.
That's a very, very thin line because if Google can figure out which account to ban and which account to let live because they are close enough that without that matrix the two would be seen as the same entity then that's already many levels of privacy violation too far. Being able to derive who is partner with whom once you have that data is trivial, whether Google actually does this or not is irrelevant because you can't prove a negative.
You are well into the territory of defending the indefensible here and I'm giving you a lot of leeway because you most likely have a mortgage and a bunch of other responsibilities but effectively you are defending your employer from a claim of gathering data without consent. Which - as I probably don't need to remind you - is a massive violation of privacy.
This all revolves around implied ability, I don't give a rats ass about whether or not there is an actual implementation of that ability - as it seems you do -, Google should not have this capability because I did not consent to its tracking of the relationships of my accounts vis-a-vis other accounts. Legal basis for data processing and informed consent are both staples of privacy law.
I know that both of these, but especially consent are difficult topics for Google, they seem to approach these things from a 'we can therefore we will' angle and that has resulted time and again in them being found on the wrong side of the lines of ethics and legality. This is just one more little nail in that particular coffin.
> This all revolves around implied ability... Google should not have this capability
The entire "ability" here is, as far as I can tell, is that it's possible to connect accounts to IP addresses. This is something that practically every system does. HN does it to stop abuse and ban-dodging. Wikipedia does it. You're reading an incredible amount of bad faith into the concept of IP bans.
> but effectively you are defending your employer from a claim of gathering data without consent.
I'm very specifically not doing that. I've made no comment on what the practices of any particular company are. Ultimately I don't know. What I do know is that the comment you're replying to doesn't say the things you keep implying. If your goal is to silence any disagreement, please feel free to continue speaking like this, but if your actually interested in engaging, I'd implore you to appreciate that I'm speaking for myself and not threaten me with..whatever you're implying here.
> This all revolves around implied ability, I don't give a rats ass about whether or not there is an actual implementation of that ability
I mean this is critical. If all you care about is the "ability" every site on the internet that you can log into has the "ability". All of them, every single one. The stance you're taking here is that a website supporting the ability to log in inherently violates your privacy because, whether or not it does, it has the ability to track information that could correlate your account with other accounts (and many of them do!)
The existence of said data store implies that they are using that data store, it is impossible without looking in the box to know what is being done with it. Erring on the side of caution with these things seems to pay off, especially when it concerns Google, who in this respect is only outdone by Facebook.
Hell, even my Japan Post Bank account asked my for my SSN.
reply