I guess I am not doing my PhD in an actual research lab then. We don't get Claude/chatgpt paid, but we basically have to use them. Otherwise we don't have any chance for sota research. And I am not talking about AI doing innovation. Just shorten the time between idea and results.

Right now we have to Pay it ourself, and we are very aware that oai might use our research.

Why would you assume that when they are violoting the very social contract that underpin the free software movement? I have published my oss work under the AGPL software that's used in production by millions of people because of Stallman's stance on free software, the very deal that is if you benefit from my code and use it from something, you must be open sourcing your code too and can't keep it behind close doors

> I think it unlikely given the harm it would do to them

Did it harm them in any real way that the original training material was also of questionable origin? Not the least.

We're being naive if we think this is not happening. Apart from some high profile enterprise contracts (which average Joe Physics Researcher does not have as they are using "free" credits insteador pay a personal account out of their own pocket), everything remotely attractive is being mined. Too sweet of a gold mine to pass by.

I'll stand corrected if an official statement from OpenAI/Anthropic comes out stating the opposite together with a whistleblower program worth its name. Until then it is safe (and reasonable) to assume that this is going on. The silence is telling.

I think it doesn't matter what the truth is. There will always be people that want to believe their preferred narrative.

It could be that some researchers can get access to latest models or no limit accounts only if they approve of usage of their data. It would be interesting to know which researchers have had which settings/setups.

How someone can prove it when they are lying? How someone can audit the fact that zero data retention enforced or even more that zero learning from this process occur? not only about discoveries them selves but also about the dropped investigation paths without successful leads?

> but I think it unlikely given the harm it would do to them to violate an enterprise contract in this way

That's if you have any reason to believe in the justice system to actually enforce that, which has already been proven complicated (although not impossible!) to demonstrate for copyrighted content.

At this point believing the frontier labs at their word is utterly naive. They have cheated and they will cheat if it gives them any hope of leaping ahead of their competitors.

OpenAI (as others) has a Researcher Access Program [0] which grants ChatGPT credits for research institutions and individuals.

They review applications beforehand to assess the "relevance of the research proposal" and check if it fits "the objectives and research priorities for this program".

There is no statement whatsoever that the data provided will not be used for training (so there would not be an "lying" required), but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

In essence, they have a process in place to grade and classify the type of information coming from each of those accounts prior to their enablement. I see no issue for them to feed that data back into training, even explicitly weighted for the field the research-access was given to.

Honestly, it's a perfect process: "Physics-research grants are reaching critical mass. Let's put priority on more physics field grants and boost the compute-resources for the physics model. Let's aim for some press-releases end of next quarter."

[0] https://help.openai.com/en/articles/10139500-researcher-acce...