• barbara@lemmy.ml
    651·
    1 year ago

    Beware that it just forwards your queries to openai

    We have agreements with model providers to further protect your privacy.

    As noted above, we call model providers on your behalf so your personal information (for example, IP address) is not exposed to them. In addition, we have agreements in place with all model providers that further limit how they can use data from these anonymous requests that includes not using Prompts and Outputs to develop or improve their models as well as deleting all information received within 30 days.

    • LWD@lemm.ee
      37·
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

  • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    422·
    1 year ago

    FYI: You don’t have to choose OpenAI. You can also choose Claude 2.1. Its corpus is more ethically sourced & it’s more private with user data, but in return it is naturally less feature-complete. Still pretty awesome though!

    • LWD@lemm.ee
      145·
      1 month ago

      deleted by creator

        • LWD@lemm.ee
          13·
          1 year ago

          deleted by creator

          • rollingflower@lemmy.kde.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            This. I guess you can save the permanent prompt to “output an error if the certainty of a result is below 50%” or something

            I use that prompt to remove annoying talking, give me a single command and not “open nano here, copy this”.

      • MuchPineapples@lemmy.world
        10·
        1 year ago

        That’s super wrong. Typical ai hallucination since it’s not in training data (Claude is quite new).

      • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        10·
        1 year ago

        ChatGPT is incorrect. I asked Claude about it and this is what it has to say.

        (Skip to bottom for tl;dr.)

         

         


         

        tl;dr

        Claude’s end response:

        when I said earlier that “Claude acts as a privacy layer provided by DuckDuckGo”, that was an incorrect statement. To clarify:

        • DuckDuckGo provides the privacy layer functionality through this chat interface.

        • I am Claude, an AI model created by Anthropic to converse.

        • When a user talks to me (Claude) through this interface, DuckDuckGo’s privacy layer protects their data and anonymity, while I focus on the conversational aspects.

        • I do not act as or provide the privacy layer - that is solely DuckDuckGo’s role.

        Thank you for catching my mistaken statement earlier. To summarize correctly:

        DuckDuckGo enables the privacy layer protections. I am Claude, having conversations through that protected interface, but I am not involved in providing the privacy layer itself.

        I appreciate you taking the time to ensure I understand this properly. Please let me know if any part of the explanation remains unclear!

  • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.orgEnglish
    19·
    1 year ago

    Um, how about no? Love DDG but good lord are we just supposed to take openai’s word for this privacy? Lol

    • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Yes, it’s a stretch, but think about it. If they is a proxy, then it isn’t worse than using piped or invidious too search and listen for music or such.

  • Ilandar@aussie.zone
    101·
    1 year ago

    Better alternatives are always welcomed, even if they’re not universally needed or perfect. I already use their search engine quite regularly so I can imagine I will try this occasionally, though I think trust issues with AI chat will always be difficult to overcome for me since I’ve spent the majority of my life doing this stuff for myself.

  • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
    8·
    1 year ago

    Meh. I’ll stick with local llama and firejailed lmstudio.

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    5·
    1 year ago

    It’s funny how fads have moved on from fashion and toys and onto the internet

  • oldfart@lemm.ee
    5·
    1 year ago

    What is the link? It doesn’t appear on main ddg page for me

  • Gargari@lemmy.mlEnglish
    4·
    1 year ago

    They really think their target audience will like it?

    • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Well, I mostly haven’t used the existing tools because I did not trust the service providers with my privacy, and also I do not think these are such an all important tools.

      However this is a proxy, basically. Isn’t it?
      So if we are fine using youtube through (video proxying instances of) Invidious and Piped, then this should be fine too (if you don’t input private info of yours or others, that is)

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.eeEnglish
    32·
    1 year ago

    I’ll just use Jan locally on my machine and Microsoft Copilot for images.

    • UntitledQuitting@reddthat.com
      2·
      1 year ago

      Which models do you run on jan? I often get very weird responses and/or never ending feedback loops.

      That being said I still don’t have much use for text-based ai, it doesn’t really fill any gaps in my workflow

    • off_brand_@beehaw.org
      10·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t brave owned by that weird crypto guy? And based on chrome?

      • Archon of the Valley@infosec.pubEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, and? It’s one of the best options for privacy. I’m referring to their search engine though.

    • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
      4·
      1 year ago

      The irony of posting from infosec about how superior Brave is. Bruh moment.

        • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
          21·
          1 year ago

          Dude, there is degoogled chromium, and various other blink engine choices, but touting brave as a “superior” option? Oof. Big oof.

          On the gecko side of things, there are a ton of great choices as well. All of them are better in every single way than brave.

          • Archon of the Valley@infosec.pubEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Because it objectively IS. It passes privacy tests in so many areas where others fail and I’m not just talking about those privacy test sites, I’m talking tests we can run ourselves. It’s fine if you don’t like Brave but don’t let your emotions get in the way of the fact that it is, by default, the best option for privacy out of the box. Sure, you CAN harden Firefox or use Librewolf but even those don’t always succeed in passing those tests like Brave does.

            • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
              1·
              1 year ago

              Bro. Be better.

              “Objectively”

              “Superior”

              Your use of these words make me think that you don’t understand what they mean. Go ahead, use brave all you want. Big oof.

    • Firipu@startrek.website
      4·
      1 year ago

      Why would I use brave (with its weird fucked up crypto links) over Vivaldi? If you’re using chromium anyway, I don’t get the brave love.

      • Ilandar@aussie.zone
        2·
        1 year ago

        I would use Firefox over either, but at least Vivaldi’s ownership model seems pretty good (employee owned). Brave is just so untrustworthy at a company level.

        • Firipu@startrek.website
          1·
          1 year ago

          Been saying this for years, the day Firefox gets native gestures, is the day I’ll swap.

          Can’t live without them (and speeddial tbh)

      • Archon of the Valley@infosec.pubEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Better privacy, better UI not cluttered by excessive and unnecessary options, and a fantastic feature set… but I’m referring to their search engine in this context.

        • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          As I understand the point was the AI tool of the org, not the search engine.

          • Archon of the Valley@infosec.pubEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            The AI is intrinsically linked to the search engine if I’m not mistaken. Brave has AI built into their search engine and their browser, but it’s very well done and pro-privacy.