The burden of proof is on Buckmaster and Alpöge to reveal if they had the "Improve the model for everyone" setting enabled or disabled. OpenAI shouldn't be expected to reveal private user configuration data. You're asking them to perform a user privacy violation.

If the reason that OpenAI is unable to state whether they trained on this data is because they (as policy) do not reveal whether a given member has turned on/off the "Improve the model for everyone" setting, they can at least say so.

FWIW, publicly facing OAI docs are very unclear about whether this setting even applies to Codex conversations.

An OpenAI employee did say so: https://x.com/tszzl/status/2097393423808377173

it is exceptionally unlikely that anything they ever did made it into any part of training, and the chances are zero if they have opted out (likely). it would be a terrible precedent to break the the PII-scrubbing boundary to go and round it down to 0, and we won’t do it

And we all know how good OpenAI is at containing models during training...

That's an entirely different question

Not really.

We have lots of examples now of their model doing what they say is impossible.

Now we have another example of something that they say is impossible or very unlikely. Do we take their word for it this time? Really?

That training data does not preserve provenance seems a "smoking gun" in terms of intent to plagiarize.

Does Anthropic, Grok, etc. log their training data? I had the impression it was rather a mess.

Yes. Pretty much all the models that don't suck are trained on user data, either directly or via derived synthetic data.

Many upstart Chinese labs got around the user data issue by just buying copious amounts of Claude and ChatGPT session logs from model routers.

But I was asking about _logging_ training data, I don’t understand how your answer relates to my question. Maybe I’m being obtuse.