I subscribe to several newsletters, mainly from companies whose products I already use. But I don’t always open the emails when they come through my inbox. And admittedly, some eventually end up banished to the spambox, especially the overly eager ones that badger me on an annoyingly frequent basis.
Take note, email marketers.
However, a good headline will get the better of me every so often, and yeah – I’ll click on it. Such was the case that prompted this post.
The idea to write something on the topic I’m about to get into, had already been bouncing around inside my skull for weeks, maybe even some months. But the incentive to actually sit down and craft some words around the thoughts, only came after reading an article that was at the end of a well-timed newsletter headline from Skiff.
Nosey Bard
The newsletter headline asked, “Was Google’s Bard trained on Gmail data?” (For those who aren’t familiar, ‘Bard’ is what Google has named their AI creation.) “Well, hmmmm… that’s a good question!” I found myself asking. I suppose there’s one way to find out.
The actual article written by Eli McKinnon was titled, “Why won’t Google give a straight answer on whether Bard was trained on Gmail data?”. It centered primarily on an AI researcher’s interaction with the chat AI, specifically regarding its learning process and sources. The top section reads,
“…Google’s access to huge troves of user-generated text and speech — via its search, docs, mail, and voice assistant products — is often cited as one of the company’s core competitive advantages in the AI race. There’s a strong incentive for Google to exploit this advantage. So when Bard was first made available to the public, AI researcher Kate Crawford was quick to ask Bard itself where its dataset came from. The answer caught her attention: Bard said one of its data sources was Gmail.“
The rest of the story then went on to question Google’s response and suspect them of a coverup, or at least charge them with not being completely transparent. As of this article, it seems they’ve had time to come up with an official response, which still doesn’t instill any confidence in the veracity of their claim IMHO.
I Promise I Won’t Peek
*Yawn* Really? I would imagine that by now, most would understand that when software is free, usually, the user is the product. So of COURSE your most intimate and dark secrets, safely stored on their servers are being fully exploited.
The more interesting part of this story to me, has to do with the rise of privacy focused alternative choices to the big tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook; who largely profit from exploiting their users’ personal data.
One of the alt tech companies quickly rising to challenge Google is the same one that published this article: Skiff
4 Challengers
In my next post, I will take a look at 4 security and privacy minded alternatives to Google that I personally use: Skiff, Proton, Internxt, and Keeper.
They’re not all competing in the same exact space; But all are focused on offering an alternative to the current dominant technology.