OpenAI accidentally deleted potential evidence in NY Times copyright lawsuit
OpenAI accidentally deleted potential evidence in NY Times copyright lawsuit
In a court filing, lawyers for The NY Times and Daily news say that OpenAI accidentally deleted potential evidence against it.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4d75a/4d75a2df0551bd9d83ee6591ec7809062829daaf" alt="OpenAI accidentally deleted potential evidence in NY Times copyright lawsuit (updated) | TechCrunch"
"Accidentally"
250 2 ReplyLol how many of us thought this immediately?
51 0 ReplyApparently, everyone 😂
21 0 Reply
About as accidental as falling off the stairs in Russia
22 0 ReplyThat only happens when they accidentally miss the window.
16 1 Reply
"I accidentally did something that I had to explicitly go out of my way to do, and doing literally nothing could have prevented it"
1 0 Reply
“Accidentally”
168 2 ReplyThen the assumption should be the most damning scenario for open AI that this evidence could provide.
142 1 ReplyAFAIK that is, in fact, how juries are generally instructed to regard destruction of evidence.
101 0 Reply
"Accidentally"
113 1 ReplyImportant context:
- Data was recovered
- Plaintiff does not believe it was purposeful
- Cost plaintiff a week's work
- Plaintiff has already spent 150 hours going through data
103 0 Replyaccidentally
Let a judge be the judge of that...
90 1 ReplyPerhaps obstructing justice isn't as bad as copyright infringement?
9 1 ReplyI mean, even the plaintiff thinks it was an accident.
8 2 Reply
"Accidentally"
84 2 Reply"Oopsie woopsie 🤭" - OpenAI
84 3 Replyit is the 2024 version of the dog ate my homework
68 1 ReplyJournalistic malpractice to repeat their “accidentally” claim without attribution or quotes
54 2 Replyaverage tech journalist
4 1 Reply
57 5 ReplyBarely an inconvenience
13 0 ReplyI'm gonna need you to get all the way off my back about that missing evidence
9 0 Reply
51 2 Reply"accidentally"
32 1 Reply“Accidentally”
30 0 ReplyIn Spain, in a major political corruption trial, a party turned in as evidence some drives that had been erased by Dban 7 times. They argued that it was routine to do seven passes.
28 0 ReplyIt is... It's literally a preconfigured option on the dban selection list.
Source: My memory... but if that's not good enough, here's wiki too.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darik's_Boot_and_Nuke
and DOD 5220.22-M (7 passes) are also included as options to handle data remanence.
29 1 ReplyIt's an option, but not the default. It takes forever to run, so someone using it is being very intentional.
It's also considered wildly overkill, especially with modern drives and their data density. Even a single pass of zeros, the fastest and default dban option, wipe data at a level that you would need a nation state actor to even try to recover data.
9 1 Reply
Were they erased when the investigation started or was it done time before?
2 0 Reply
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!
26 2 Reply"Upise ahah my bad"
25 2 ReplyA megafuckhuge IT corp who deals in data doesn't have backups, right, RIGHT???
22 0 ReplyOopsDidntMeanTo
22 1 Reply"Oh, silly me I seem to have deleted all the evidence. Whoops."
18 1 Reply“My ai ate my homework”
15 1 ReplyDidn't have enough tokens for the history whoops
15 1 Reply"All of history deleted with one stroke" - Muse
11 1 ReplyThey must have used chatGPT to write the archival script.
9 0 ReplyThe fact that clicking the link takes you to a 404 page definitely helps with the whole "accidentally" bit.
Anyone know if the story turned out to be false and got deleted or if it's just a dud link?
8 0 ReplySurely they did NOT want this to happen.
Surely they do NOT want to win their case.
...
8 1 ReplyI sometimes work with lawyers to do discovery for corporate IT. The good news is, this doesn't really fly in court from what my company's legal team has told me. So either the evidence was SO bad that this was a better option for them, or they actually did shoot themselves in the foot.
6 0 ReplyThey know they'll get away with it, so why wouldn't they
6 1 ReplyOops
5 0 ReplyWell it was accidental so that's all right.
It really was convenient though.
3 1 ReplyAccidentally my butt, get em new York times
2 1 ReplyUh-huh.
2 1 ReplyWould spoliation apply here?
1 0 ReplyNo... No it didn't... But you can imagine what it would be like if it did, right?
1 1 Reply