ChatGPT conversations could be shared with court
Current systems lack adequate safeguards for confidential conversations, he warned, amid a surge in the use of AI chatbots by millions of users – including children – for therapy and emotional support.
Speaking to the This Past Weekend podcast published last week, Altman said users should not expect legal confidentiality when using ChatGPT, while he cited the absence of a legal or policy framework governing AI.
'People talk about the most personal sh** in their lives to ChatGPT,' he said.
Many AI users – particularly young people – treat the chatbot like a therapist or life coach for advice on relationship and emotional issues, Altman revealed.
However unlike conversations with lawyers or therapists, which are protected by legal privilege or confidentiality, no such protections currently exist for interactions with AI. 'We haven't figured that out yet for when you talk to ChatGPT,' he added.
Altman said the issue of confidentiality and privacy in AI interactions needs urgent attention. 'So if you go talk to ChatGPT about your most sensitive stuff and then there's like a lawsuit or whatever, we could be required to produce that, and I think that's very screwed up,' he said.
OpenAI claims it deletes free-tier ChatGPT conversations after 30 days, however, some chats could be stored for legal or security reasons.
The company is facing a lawsuit from The New York Times over alleged copyright infringement over the use of Times articles in training its AI models.
The case has compelled OpenAI to preserve user conversations from millions of ChatGPT users, barring those by enterprise clients, an order the company has appealed, citing 'overreach.'
Latest research has found that ChatGPT has been linked to psychosis in some users. According to researchers, concerns are growing that AI chatbots could exacerbate psychiatric conditions as they are increasingly used in personal and emotional contexts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
India ‘financing' Ukraine conflict
Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has accused New Delhi of 'effectively' financing Russia's conflict in Ukraine by purchasing oil from Moscow. In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Miller addressed Washington's decision to impose 25% tariffs on imports from India, plus impose an undisclosed penalty on the South Asian nation for its defense and trade ties with Russia. 'What he (Trump) said very clearly is that it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia,' Miller told Fox News. 'People will be shocked to learn that India is basically tied with China in purchasing Russian oil. That's an astonishing fact.' Last week, Trump attacked New Delhi for its ties to Moscow in a post on his Truth Social account. 'I don't care what India does with Russia,' he said. 'They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care. We have done very little business with India, their Tariffs are too high, among the highest in the world.' ❗️Trump Adviser Calls Indian Trade with Russia "Not Acceptable" - India Doesn't Buy US Products & Cheats Immigration!Stephen Miller - a top aide to the US president - stated it is unacceptable for India to be buying Russian oil - accusing New Delhi of funding the conflict. (Fox… The US president has also threatened 100% tariffs on exports from countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized India for continuing to import the discounted oil despite Western sanctions, claiming New Delhi was 'helping to sustain the Russian war effort.' Rubio, in a Fox Radio interview on Thursday called India's energy trade with Russia 'a point of irritation' in Washington's relationship with New Delhi. New Delhi has defended its decision to ramp up purchases of Russian oil despite enormous pressure from the West, by arguing that it has helped global markets avoid sharp increases in crude prices.
Russia Today
7 hours ago
- Russia Today
Swiss president blamed for ‘disastrous' deal with Trump
Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter is facing backlash after trade talks with Washington collapsed following a 'disastrous' phone call with US President Donald Trump, Financial Times has reported, citing sources familiar with the matter. Trump announced a 39% levy – one of the highest globally – on Swiss goods on Friday, coinciding with Switzerland's national day. According to the FT report published on Sunday, Swiss negotiators believed they had secured a provisional deal for a 10% tariff, similar to the UK's arrangement. In exchange, Bern pledged nearly $150 billion in US-bound investment and remained in regular contact with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The offer was approved in early July, with Swiss officials convinced it only awaited Trump's signature. Keller-Sutter, who also serves as finance minister under the country's rotating presidency, had publicly stated last month that she had gained rare 'access to Trump.' However, during a 30-minute call on Thursday – described by sources as 'disastrous' – the US leader reportedly rejected the offer and instead focused on Switzerland's $39 billion trade surplus. 'The call did not go well, in the sense that from the very first minute Trump made it clear 10 per cent was not enough, and all he could focus on was Switzerland stealing money from the US. There was nothing Keller-Sutter could say,' one source told FT. Trump reportedly asked what more the 'very wealthy' Alpine country could offer. Swiss media called the outcome Keller-Sutter's 'biggest fiasco,' with tabloid Blick likening it to the country's worst defeat since 1515, when Swiss troops lost to France at the Battle of Marignano. Greer later denied that a final deal had been secured, telling Bloomberg: 'Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.' The tariff hike followed Trump's 'Liberation Day' speech announcing a global trade overhaul on April 2. After multiple delays and a series of negotiations, a revised executive order signed last week adjusted rates based on 'trade imbalances,' with the tariffs now set to enter into force on August 7.
Russia Today
13 hours ago
- Russia Today
EU surrendered to Trump's demands out of ‘fear'
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen agreed to a lopsided US trade deal without resistance out of fear that Washington might reduce military support for Ukraine or even withdraw American forces from Europe, the Sunday Times reported this weekend. The paper described von der Leyen's recent visit to President Donald Trump's golf course in Scotland – where she accepted a 15% tariff on most EU exports – as a 'surrender.' According to the report, officials inside the Commission initially prepared a strong countermeasure package in response to Trump's proposed 20% tariffs announced in April. But when Trump threatened to raise the tariffs to 30%, von der Leyen pulled back. Behind her reversal was 'the fear that Trump might use a dispute as a pretext to cut US military support for Ukraine or otherwise damage European security,' the Sunday Times wrote. Brussels was reportedly particularly concerned about the outcome of a pending American 'posture review' that may result in the withdrawal of some of the roughly 80,000 US troops stationed across Europe. The trade agreement finalized last week includes not only the 15% tariff on EU goods, but also commitments by Brussels to invest $600 billion in the US economy and purchase $750 billion worth of American energy over the next three years. In contrast, the UK – negotiating independently – secured a lower 10% tariff on its exports. Amid mounting internal backlash in Brussels, French President Emmanuel Macron reportedly criticized the outcome, saying the EU is 'not feared enough.' Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban remarked that Trump 'ate her for breakfast,' and accused von der Leyen of exceeding her authority by allegedly pledging to purchase large quantities of US arms. Von der Leyen has also faced growing political resistance at home, as she pushes to redirect a significant portion of the EU's next €1.8 trillion seven-year budget from traditional areas such as agriculture and regional development toward militarization. She narrowly survived a vote of confidence in the European Parliament last month amid criticism of her leadership style and controversies over her Covid-19 vaccine procurement deals. Some MEPs now view her current term as her 'last chance,' according to lawmakers quoted by the Times.
