Caveat emptor indeed. LLM-as-a-Service vendors know their customer and this customer’s needs. It’s not you. They’re selling an API to companies for whom safety and governance are part of the value proposition.
As others have mentioned, the data retention aspect is specifically /not/ an issue with OpenAI (and other vendors’) APIs.
I don’t really get the saltiness so many on this site have towards LLM vendors. It just sounds entitled.
It's sort of frustrating to know that OpenAI has a better model that wouldn't cost them anything to release, but they don't do it for PR/whatever reasons.
What “better model”? If you’re referring to whatever LLM GPT-4 was before RLHF, by what measure might this model be better? As I pointed out above, what OpenAI is selling is “best” for their customers.
there is a particular type of person, who, when presented with a marvelous new thing (idea, product, person), focuses on its flaws rather than its unique merits.
we need them to ensure an equitable and sustainable world, but they do not drive progress. i bet they are also as a group far less successful and happy throughout their miserable lives. most will just impotently fart their misery unto others, and only a rare few will actually do something about it…
…at which point they wrap around back to becoming makers of imperfect things for the next round of criticism.
As others have mentioned, the data retention aspect is specifically /not/ an issue with OpenAI (and other vendors’) APIs.
I don’t really get the saltiness so many on this site have towards LLM vendors. It just sounds entitled.