>Any university using AI detection in their submission pipeline, or lawyers, editorialists, proofreaders that check for AI marks will be sending significant amounts of text like unpublished research, books, potentially internal documents and more, most of which is high quality human written, to dozens of AI companies, blindly trusting they won't train on any of that.
Uh, yeah, why do you think it's setup this way? The frontier companies desperately desire more high quality human text and this is how they are planning to get it for free.
Google, the company in the case in question, doesn't sell your data. That would be a big change for them to start, they like to keep it for themselves.
I don't mean to offend, but entrusting every input to a company literally called MITM LLC has a level of absurdity that either greatly entertains or else greatly frightens me.
> led someone to believe a 10 page PR is appropriate to begin with.
Agreed, a 10 page PR is not on. But the original article, though evidently touched up, was appropriate in length and scope. What's your real criticism here?
Promise to come back and update here if random bots start using it to communicate, you may be humanity's early warning system!
I shouldn't have to but /s
reply