users tried to object to their chatgpt logs being handed to the NYT. the court ruled they were "non-parties" to their own conversations.

in the openai copyright case, a court ordered every chatgpt output log preserved, including chats people had deleted. some users tried to intervene to protect their own conversations. the court ruled they were non-parties. they had no standing over things they personally typed. two weeks ago the publishers filed for sanctions, alleging openai deleted billions of logs anyway and spent two years telling the court it couldn't search its own systems when it already could. openai denies it. the whole consumer privacy conversation is about what companies promise. we don't train on your chats, we delete after 30 days. this case showed the promise was never the binding constraint. a judge was. so "do they train on it" is close to the least useful question. the useful one is whether anything besides their good intentions is in the way when a court, a regulator or a future owner comes asking. that's an architecture question. opengradient's chat is what i switched the sensitive half of my usage to, and the mechanism is the interesting part: oblivious http means the relay that sees your ip can't read your request, and the server reading your request never learns your ip. neither can reassemble you alone. inference runs in an attested enclave the operator can't inspect. no log to preserve, nothing to hand over, because you were never in it. two honest cons. it's a16z-crypto-backed with a listed token, which put me off for weeks. and you lose memory and personalisation entirely, so it's not a daily driver, it's where the stuff goes i don't want in someone's discovery pile. does this end up mattering to normal people, or is it five hundred of us caring loudly while everyone else decides a subpoena hitting their recipe questions isn't worth degrading their tools over.