No, Google Bard is not trained on Gmail data

AppleInsider

Google's large language model tool named Bard says that it was trained with Gmail -- but Google has denied that is the case.

Bard is a generative AI tool that can get things wrong

Bard is a generative AI or Large Language Model (LLM) which can provide information based on its large data set. Like ChatGPT and similar tools, it isn't actually intelligent and will often get things wrong, which is referred to as "hallucinating."

A tweet from Kate Crawford, author and principal researcher at Microsoft Research, shows a Bard response suggesting Gmail was included in its dataset. This would be a clear violation of user privacy, if true.

Umm, anyone a little concerned that Bard is saying its training dataset includes... Gmail?

I'm assuming that's flat out wrong, otherwise Google is crossing some serious legal boundaries. pic.twitter.com/0muhrFeZEA

-- Kate Crawford (@katecrawford)

March 21, 2023

But, Google's Workspace Twitter account responded, stating that Bard is an early experiment and will make mistakes -- and confirmed that the model was not trained with information gleaned from Gmail. The pop-up on the Bard website also warns users that Bard will not always get queries right.

These generative AI tools aren't anywhere near foolproof, and users with access often try to pull out information that would otherwise be hidden. Queries such as Crawford's can sometimes provide useful information, but in this case, Bard got it wrong.

Generative AI and LLMs have become a popular topic in the tech community. While these systems are impressive, they are also filled with early problems.

Users are urged, even by Google itself, to fall back onto web search whenever an LLM like Bard provides a response. While it might be interesting to see what it will say, it is not guaranteed to be accurate.

Read on AppleInsider

tnet-primary

Case closed.  

DAalseth

Let’s see
i don’t trust Bard to get the right answer. 
i don’t trust Google to tell the truth. 

chasm

I think it would have been more prudent to say that Google denies Bard was trained on Gmail data, as given Google’s track record on honesty is … not something you should take as definitive, let’s just say.

Out of the mouths of babes … or bards, in this case …

genovelle

chasm said:

I think it would have been more prudent to say that Google denies Bard was trained on Gmail data, as given Google’s track record on honesty is … not something you should take as definitive, let’s just say.

Out of the mouths of babes … or bards, in this case …

So please tell me when they actually stopped scanning emails for data. They said the would stop a year after being caught doing it, but didn’t at that point. There have been no announcements claiming they had stopped since. This may be a carefully worded statement where gmail wasn’t used directly but a repository of data gleaned from all of their sources was used. 

NEmacGuy

Bard said the quiet part out loud.

chasm

genovelle said:

So please tell me when they actually stopped scanning emails for data. They said the would stop a year after being caught doing it, but didn’t at that point. There have been no announcements claiming they had stopped since. This may be a carefully worded statement where gmail wasn’t used directly but a repository of data gleaned from all of their sources was used. 

I'm not suggesting they did stop. I'm saying Google responded to Ms. Crawford's tweet saying that Bard was NOT trained on Gmail data. But given their track record ... you have to wonder if Bard is being more honest than they are at this point.

gatorguy

genovelle said:

chasm said:

I think it would have been more prudent to say that Google denies Bard was trained on Gmail data, as given Google’s track record on honesty is … not something you should take as definitive, let’s just say.

Out of the mouths of babes … or bards, in this case …

So please tell me when they actually stopped scanning emails for data. They said the would stop a year after being caught doing it, but didn’t at that point. There have been no announcements claiming they had stopped since. This may be a carefully worded statement where gmail wasn’t used directly but a repository of data gleaned from all of their sources was used. 

Are you referring to events from several years ago? That was related to machine-reading your emails for monetizing, ie  ad-purposes, correct? FWIW they weren't "caught" doing something that wasn't already well-known.  But if that's what you're referring to it did cease 6 years ago, and plainly stated to be the case in privacy policy and several published help pages. This is one of them.  
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10434152?hl=en

If they were being dishonest about this, they would have been sued multiple times by various governments and targeted by a plethora of class-actions for lying about their privacy policy since then. Google is always under the microscope. 

Your personal data remains your personal data. 

anonymouse

gatorguy said:

genovelle said:

chasm said:

I think it would have been more prudent to say that Google denies Bard was trained on Gmail data, as given Google’s track record on honesty is … not something you should take as definitive, let’s just say.

Out of the mouths of babes … or bards, in this case …

So please tell me when they actually stopped scanning emails for data. They said the would stop a year after being caught doing it, but didn’t at that point. There have been no announcements claiming they had stopped since. This may be a carefully worded statement where gmail wasn’t used directly but a repository of data gleaned from all of their sources was used. 

Are you referring to events from several years ago? That was related to machine-reding your emails for monetizing, ie  ad-purposes, correct? FWIW they weren't "caught" doing something that wasn't already well-known.  But if that's what you're referring to it did cease 6 years ago, and plainly stated to be the case in privacy policy and several published help pages. This is one of them.  
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10434152?hl=en

If they were being dishonest about this, they would have been sued multiple times by various governments and targeted by a plethora of class-actions for lying about their privacy policy since then. Google is always under the microscope. 

Your personal data remains your personal data. 

And, as Google always says, "All your personal data are belong to us."

Six years? Was that around the time they dropped 'Don't be evil' from the corporate policy? Remember, Google does all sorts of things "inadvertently", so, no doubt, we'll find out in a short while that Bard was "inadvertently" trained on Gmail data ... by a contractor ... who is no longer with the company. (Perhaps the same guy who was previously responsible for all the other egregious privacy invasions — they keep giving him another chance.)

I mean, come on, gatorguy, does Google really have any credibility at all on issues like this? We know you will always do the knee-jerk defense, but frankly, the stupid computer program has more credibility than Google or you. 

DAalseth

gatorguy said:

genovelle said:

chasm said:

I think it would have been more prudent to say that Google denies Bard was trained on Gmail data, as given Google’s track record on honesty is … not something you should take as definitive, let’s just say.

Out of the mouths of babes … or bards, in this case …

So please tell me when they actually stopped scanning emails for data. They said the would stop a year after being caught doing it, but didn’t at that point. There have been no announcements claiming they had stopped since. This may be a carefully worded statement where gmail wasn’t used directly but a repository of data gleaned from all of their sources was used. 

Are you referring to events from several years ago? That was related to machine-reading your emails for monetizing, ie  ad-purposes, correct? FWIW they weren't "caught" doing something that wasn't already well-known.  But if that's what you're referring to it did cease 6 years ago, and plainly stated to be the case in privacy policy and several published help pages. This is one of them.  
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10434152?hl=en

If they were being dishonest about this, they would have been sued multiple times by various governments and targeted by a plethora of class-actions for lying about their privacy policy since then. Google is always under the microscope. 

Your personal data remains your personal data. 

It may have been “well known”, but Google always officially denied it. Until they announced they would not do it any more, which they have done a couple of times. Similarly they always said that Google Docs were not being used for ad-purposes, until they announced they would no longer do it. 

Sorry but Google has been caught lying about this kind of thing WAY too many times to be credible. 

I do find it surprising though that they haven’t been sued over this, though. 

gatorguy

DAalseth said:

gatorguy said:

genovelle said:

chasm said:

I think it would have been more prudent to say that Google denies Bard was trained on Gmail data, as given Google’s track record on honesty is … not something you should take as definitive, let’s just say.

Out of the mouths of babes … or bards, in this case …

So please tell me when they actually stopped scanning emails for data. They said the would stop a year after being caught doing it, but didn’t at that point. There have been no announcements claiming they had stopped since. This may be a carefully worded statement where gmail wasn’t used directly but a repository of data gleaned from all of their sources was used. 

Are you referring to events from several years ago? That was related to machine-reading your emails for monetizing, ie  ad-purposes, correct? FWIW they weren't "caught" doing something that wasn't already well-known.  But if that's what you're referring to it did cease 6 years ago, and plainly stated to be the case in privacy policy and several published help pages. This is one of them.  
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10434152?hl=en

If they were being dishonest about this, they would have been sued multiple times by various governments and targeted by a plethora of class-actions for lying about their privacy policy since then. Google is always under the microscope. 

Your personal data remains your personal data. 

It may have been “well known”, but Google always officially denied it. Until they announced they would not do it any more, which they have done a couple of times. Similarly they always said that Google Docs were not being used for ad-purposes, until they announced they would no longer do it. 

Sorry but Google has been caught lying about this kind of thing WAY too many times to be credible. 

I do find it surprising though that they haven’t been sued over this, though. 

You're mistaken. Google never claimed not to keyword scan email for use in ad placement (and other companies still do so). But feel free to prove me wrong, Don't miss that opportunity. Give me a source for it.  At least once you go looking for the thing that doesn't exist then you will know the facts.

auxio

gatorguy said:

DAalseth said:

gatorguy said:

genovelle said:

chasm said:

I think it would have been more prudent to say that Google denies Bard was trained on Gmail data, as given Google’s track record on honesty is … not something you should take as definitive, let’s just say.

Out of the mouths of babes … or bards, in this case …

So please tell me when they actually stopped scanning emails for data. They said the would stop a year after being caught doing it, but didn’t at that point. There have been no announcements claiming they had stopped since. This may be a carefully worded statement where gmail wasn’t used directly but a repository of data gleaned from all of their sources was used. 

Are you referring to events from several years ago? That was related to machine-reading your emails for monetizing, ie  ad-purposes, correct? FWIW they weren't "caught" doing something that wasn't already well-known.  But if that's what you're referring to it did cease 6 years ago, and plainly stated to be the case in privacy policy and several published help pages. This is one of them.  
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10434152?hl=en

If they were being dishonest about this, they would have been sued multiple times by various governments and targeted by a plethora of class-actions for lying about their privacy policy since then. Google is always under the microscope. 

Your personal data remains your personal data. 

It may have been “well known”, but Google always officially denied it. Until they announced they would not do it any more, which they have done a couple of times. Similarly they always said that Google Docs were not being used for ad-purposes, until they announced they would no longer do it. 

Sorry but Google has been caught lying about this kind of thing WAY too many times to be credible. 

I do find it surprising though that they haven’t been sued over this, though. 

You're mistaken. Google never claimed not to keyword scan email for use in ad placement (and other companies still do so). But feel free to prove me wrong, Don't miss that opportunity. Give me a source for it.  At least once you go looking for the thing that doesn't exist then you will know the facts.

And the real fact is that Google will do something until people call them out for it. In the meantime, they've come up with about a dozen other ways to do it so that they can stop doing the thing they're being called out for and come out looking like the good guy.

Honestly, just come out and be public with your entire business model and let people decide if they can stomach all the things you're doing behind the scenes. As a friend of mine who worked for Google said after watching Black Mirror, "it's a little too close for comfort".

auxio

NEmacGuy said:

Bard said the quiet part out loud.

It must have been created in the image of Eric Schmidt 

gatorguy

auxio said:

gatorguy said:

DAalseth said:

gatorguy said:

genovelle said:

chasm said:

I think it would have been more prudent to say that Google denies Bard was trained on Gmail data, as given Google’s track record on honesty is … not something you should take as definitive, let’s just say.

Out of the mouths of babes … or bards, in this case …

So please tell me when they actually stopped scanning emails for data. They said the would stop a year after being caught doing it, but didn’t at that point. There have been no announcements claiming they had stopped since. This may be a carefully worded statement where gmail wasn’t used directly but a repository of data gleaned from all of their sources was used. 

Are you referring to events from several years ago? That was related to machine-reading your emails for monetizing, ie  ad-purposes, correct? FWIW they weren't "caught" doing something that wasn't already well-known.  But if that's what you're referring to it did cease 6 years ago, and plainly stated to be the case in privacy policy and several published help pages. This is one of them.  
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10434152?hl=en

If they were being dishonest about this, they would have been sued multiple times by various governments and targeted by a plethora of class-actions for lying about their privacy policy since then. Google is always under the microscope. 

Your personal data remains your personal data. 

It may have been “well known”, but Google always officially denied it. Until they announced they would not do it any more, which they have done a couple of times. Similarly they always said that Google Docs were not being used for ad-purposes, until they announced they would no longer do it. 

Sorry but Google has been caught lying about this kind of thing WAY too many times to be credible. 

I do find it surprising though that they haven’t been sued over this, though. 

You're mistaken. Google never claimed not to keyword scan email for use in ad placement (and other companies still do so). But feel free to prove me wrong, Don't miss that opportunity. Give me a source for it.  At least once you go looking for the thing that doesn't exist then you will know the facts.

And the real fact is that Google will do something until people call them out for it. In the meantime, they've come up with about a dozen other ways to do it so that they can stop doing the thing they're being called out for and come out looking like the good guy.

Honestly, just come out and be public with your entire business model and let people decide if they can stomach all the things you're doing behind the scenes. As a friend of mine who worked for Google said after watching Black Mirror, "it's a little too close for comfort".

That's a perfectly valid opinion Auxio.

Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish, distrust or trust as the case might be. What should not be done is factual misrepresentation, particularly when a bit of research would have surfaced the truth of the matter.

Misstatements of fact should be pointed out and corrected. Opinions are what they are, and generally not something worth spending time on, since they are very resistant to change.  Facts are a different animal. 

9secondkox2

Google literally has gmail users agree that Google can use your email content (and those you communicate with) in any way they wish. 

Yes, that includes Bard training. 

Of course they don’t want to state that for obvious reasons. But let’s be real here. 

Your Flickr images will also be showing up in Google AI image gen mashups. 

Hey, when the app is free, you are the product. 

gatorguy

9secondkox2 said:

Google literally has gmail users agree that Google can use your email content (and those you communicate with) in any way they wish. 

Yes, that includes Bard training. 

Of course they don’t want to state that for obvious reasons. But let’s be real here. 

Your Flickr images will also be showing up in Google AI image gen mashups. 

Link please or it didn't happen.
If you're confused what a proper link might be, this is an example of one: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10434152?hl=en

9secondkox2

gatorguy said:

genovelle said:

chasm said:

I think it would have been more prudent to say that Google denies Bard was trained on Gmail data, as given Google’s track record on honesty is … not something you should take as definitive, let’s just say.

Out of the mouths of babes … or bards, in this case …

So please tell me when they actually stopped scanning emails for data. They said the would stop a year after being caught doing it, but didn’t at that point. There have been no announcements claiming they had stopped since. This may be a carefully worded statement where gmail wasn’t used directly but a repository of data gleaned from all of their sources was used. 

Are you referring to events from several years ago? That was related to machine-reading your emails for monetizing, ie  ad-purposes, correct? FWIW they weren't "caught" doing something that wasn't already well-known.  But if that's what you're referring to it did cease 6 years ago, and plainly stated to be the case in privacy policy and several published help pages. This is one of them.  
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10434152?hl=en

If they were being dishonest about this, they would have been sued multiple times by various governments and targeted by a plethora of class-actions for lying about their privacy policy since then. Google is always under the microscope. 

Your personal data remains your personal data. 

Governments don’t sue those who feed them citizen data. 

gatorguy

9secondkox2 said:

gatorguy said:

genovelle said:

chasm said:

I think it would have been more prudent to say that Google denies Bard was trained on Gmail data, as given Google’s track record on honesty is … not something you should take as definitive, let’s just say.

Out of the mouths of babes … or bards, in this case …

So please tell me when they actually stopped scanning emails for data. They said the would stop a year after being caught doing it, but didn’t at that point. There have been no announcements claiming they had stopped since. This may be a carefully worded statement where gmail wasn’t used directly but a repository of data gleaned from all of their sources was used. 

Are you referring to events from several years ago? That was related to machine-reading your emails for monetizing, ie  ad-purposes, correct? FWIW they weren't "caught" doing something that wasn't already well-known.  But if that's what you're referring to it did cease 6 years ago, and plainly stated to be the case in privacy policy and several published help pages. This is one of them.  
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10434152?hl=en

If they were being dishonest about this, they would have been sued multiple times by various governments and targeted by a plethora of class-actions for lying about their privacy policy since then. Google is always under the microscope. 

Your personal data remains your personal data. 

Governments don’t sue those who feed them citizen data. 

Oh, but lawyers are ALWAYS looking for the big payday. If there was the slightest indication Google is lying about it they'd be all over it. You knew that. 

But let's assume your logic isn't as flawed as it seems to be. 

The US has sued Google, therefor Google doesn't cooperate with them.
The EU has sued Google too. Therefor Google doesn't feed them either. 
Korea and the UK and Japan and Russia and probably a couple others I can't think of at the moment have also sued Google . Therefor Google doesn't willingly deliver citizen data to any of them either.

(eye-roll)