I don't think OpenAI gets anything from this, I think they just failed to realize how stupid the average person is.

and you don't need a computer, and you don't need to eat good food

It's just that you lose so much productivity, comfort and so on

When such a tool is a difference between 30 mins and 5 hours of work, then you simply use it. You either move with the masses to compete, or you don't, but you'll pay the price anyways.

If you think LLMs are as fundamental as having a computer or internet access, then I really just don't know what to say.

You have clearly never been in that situation then. It is obviously not like this for many people, but for students for example, it often means a lot more

Yeah, this thing that's notorious for hallucinating and has only recently become even somewhat reliable is essential.

How did all those students from 2021 even survive??

Jesus, we're absolutely fucked.

They get more human written text, which is one of the most powerful things in their doomed attempt to forestall model collapse

Surviving is different than living in good conditions

As with every tool, it has downsides. Learn to use it or continue to whine

That is... literally my point.

You're comparing very disparate things. And I already pointed out the downside. No one here is whining about anything.

They already have the text

And I already pointed the upside. You don't have to use the default UI though, custom UI exists, APIs exists, and you don't have to enter personal infos in prompts, as well as use your residential IP... this pretty much makes it unlinkable to you

Isn't that a good thing? If more people are using it without it being indexed, search engines would end up even more useless.

To use your analogy, it's like someone said, "Well, if you want a Michelin 5-star steak au jus, then your wallet is gonna take a hit". And you replied, "That's like saying in order to eat dinner you need to raise your own livestock and train for years as a professional chef".

I'm not saying corporate LLMs are bad, or that they have no upside. I'm saying your scale for what's essential and what's a luxury is alarming.

I wish they were always a luxury, but in some situations they’re just too important to me

While I don't fully share the notion and tone of other commenter, I gotta say LLMs have absolutely tanked education and science, as noted by many and as I witnessed firsthand.

I'm a young scientist on my way to PhD, and I get to assist in a microbiology course for undergraduates.

The amount of AI slop coming from student assignments is astounding, and worse of all - they don't see it themselves. When it comes to me checking their actual knowledge, it's devastating.

And it's not just undergrads - many scientific articles also now have signs of AI slop, which messes up with research to a concerning degree.

Personally, I tried using more specialized tools like Perplexity in Research mode to look for sources, but it royally messed up listing the sources - it took actual info from scientific articles, but then referenced entirely different articles that hold no relation to it.

So, in my experience LLMs can be useful to generate a simple text or help you tie known facts together. But as a learning tool...be careful, or rather just don't use them for that. Classical education exists for a good reason, and it is that you learn to get factually correct and relevant information, analyze it and keep it in your head for future reference. It takes more time, but is ultimately much worth it.

Sure, many don’t care and I have also experienced this, but it’s a fabulous way to quickly get a glimpse at a subject, or to get started, or to learn more. It’s not always correct, but for known subjects it’s pretty good

Anything related to law or really specific subjects will be horrible though

Classical education exists for a good reason

Sure, but not everyone teaches well enough, and LLMs are one of the ways to balance this, kinda

And if you don’t understand then… yea it’s still useful as a way to avoid failing a year which is morally questionable but hey, another topic

ChatGPT chats are only public when turned into a shareable chat (which is a manually created snapshot of the chat with a link). And they only show up on search machines if you, after sharing, select the opt-in checkbox for having it show up there.

I don't know how duck.ai works, but I assume it doesn't do this.

Should we be surprised? Thinking AI, the most data hungry undertaking in existence, was not storing the data from what you write? Especially when the companies behind it are the most invasive in history? Lol what else

Plus, you explicitly have to opt into this, for each chat you share individually.

I get that it says "discoverable" at first and the search engines are in the fine print, but search engine crawlers get it anyway if it's discoverable on ChatGPT's website instead. That term is plenty clear imo.

Update 7/31/25 4:10pm PT: Hours after this article was published, OpenAI said it removed the feature from ChatGPT that allowed users to make their public conversations discoverable by search engines. The company says this was a short-lived experiment that ultimately “introduced too many opportunities for folks to accidentally share things they didn’t intend to.”

Interesting, because the checkbox is still there for me. Don't see things having changed at all, maybe they made the fine print more white? But nothing else.

In general, this reminds me of the incognito drama. Iirc people were unhappy that incognito mode didn't prevent Google websites from fingerprinting you. Which... the mode never claimed to do, it explicitly told you it didn't do that.

For chats to be discoverable through search engines, you not only have to explicitly and manually share them, you also have to then opt in to having them appear on search machines via a checkbox.

The main criticism I've seen is that the checkbox's main label only says it makes the chat "discoverable", while the search engines clarification is in the fine print. But I don't really understand how that is unclear.
Like, even if they made them discoverable through ChatGPT's website only (so no third party data sharing), Google would still get their hands on them via their crawler. This is just them skipping the middleman, the end result is the same. We'd still hear news about them appearing on Google.

This just seems to me like people clicking a checkbox based on vibes rather than critical thought of what consequences it could have and whether they want them. I don't see what can really be done against people like that.

I don't think OpenAI can be blamed for doing the data sharing, as it's opt-in, nor for the chats ending up on Google at all. If the latter was a valid complaint, it would also be valid to complain to the Lemmy devs about Lemmy posts appearing on Google. And again, I don't think the label complaint has much weight to it either, because if it's discoverable, it gets to Google one way or another.