OpenAI Offers 20 Million User Chats In ChatGPT Lawsuit. NYT Wants 120 Million. An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: OpenAI is preparing to raise what could be its final defense to stop The New York Times from digging through a spectacularly broad range of ChatGPT logs to hunt for any copyright-infringing outputs that could become the most damning evidence in the hotly watched case. In a joint letter (PDF) Thursday, both sides requested to hold a confidential settlement conference on August 7. Ars confirmed with the NYT's legal team that the conference is not about settling the case but instead was scheduled to settle one of the most disputed aspects of the case: news plaintiffs searching through millions of ChatGPT logs. That means it's possible that this week, ChatGPT users will have a much clearer understanding of whether their private chats might be accessed in the lawsuit. In the meantime, OpenAI has broken down (PDF) the "highly complex" process required to make deleted chats searchable in order to block the NYT's request for broader access. Previously, OpenAI had vowed to stop what it deemed was the NYT's attempt to conduct "mass surveillance" of ChatGPT users. But ultimately, OpenAI lost its fight to keep news plaintiffs away from all ChatGPT logs. After that loss, OpenAI appears to have pivoted and is now doing everything in its power to limit the number of logs accessed in the case -- short of settling -- as its customers fretted over serious privacy concerns. For the most vulnerable users, the lawsuit threatened to expose ChatGPT outputs from sensitive chats that OpenAI had previously promised would be deleted. Most recently, OpenAI floated a compromise, asking the court to agree that news organizations didn't need to search all ChatGPT logs. The AI company cited the "only expert" who has so far weighed in on what could be a statistically relevant, appropriate sample size -- computer science researcher Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick. He suggested that a sample of 20 million logs would be sufficient to determine how frequently ChatGPT users may be using the chatbot to regurgitate articles and circumvent news sites' paywalls. But the NYT and other news organizations rejected the compromise, OpenAI said in a filing (PDF) yesterday. Instead, news plaintiffs have made what OpenAI said was an "extraordinary request that OpenAI produce the individual log files of 120 million ChatGPT consumer conversations." That's six times more data than Berg-Kirkpatrick recommended, OpenAI argued. Complying with the request threatens to "increase the scope of user privacy concerns" by delaying the outcome of the case "by months," OpenAI argued. If the request is granted, it would likely trouble many users by extending the amount of time that users' deleted chats will be stored and potentially making them vulnerable to a breach or leak. As negotiations potentially end this week, OpenAI's co-defendant, Microsoft, has picked its own fight with the NYT over its internal ChatGPT equivalent tool that could potentially push the NYT to settle the disputes over ChatGPT logs. <a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=OpenAI+Offers+20+Million+User+Chats+In+ChatGPT+Lawsuit.+NYT+Wants+120+Million.%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F25%2F08%2F05%2F2130255%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F25%2F08%2F05%2F2130255%2Fopenai-offers-20-million-user-chats-in-chatgpt-lawsuit-nyt-wants-120-million%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>
OpenAI Offers 20 Million User Chats In ChatGPT Lawsuit. NYT Wants 120 Million. - Slashdot
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: OpenAI is preparing to raise what could be its final defense to stop The New York Times from...
 at Slashdot.
OpenAI Offers 20 Million User Chats In ChatGPT Lawsuit. NYT Wants 120 Million. - Slashdot
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: OpenAI is preparing to raise what could be its final defense to stop The New York Times from...
First Australian-Made Rocket Crashes After 14 Seconds of Flight Australia's first domestically built rocket to attempt orbital launch crashed just 14 seconds after liftoff, though the company still declared the mission a success for igniting all engines and leaving the launch pad. The Associated Press reports: The rocket Eris, launched by Gilmour Space Technologies, was the first Australian-designed and manufactured orbital launch vehicle to lift off from the country and was designed to carry small satellites to orbit. It launched Wednesday morning local time in a test flight from a spaceport near the small town of Bowen in the north of Queensland state. In videos published by Australian news outlets, the 23-meter (75-foot) rocket appeared to clear the launch tower and hovered in the air before falling out of sight. Plumes of smoke were seen rising above the site. No injuries were reported. The company hailed the launch as a success in a statement posted to Facebook. A spokesperson said all four hybrid-propelled engines ignited and the maiden flight included 23 seconds of engine burn time and 14 seconds of flight. "Of course I would have liked more flight time but happy with this," wrote CEO Adam Gilmour on LinkedIn. Gilmour said in February that it was "almost unheard of" for a private rocket company to successfully launch to orbit on its first attempt. "This is an important first step towards the giant leap of a future commercial space industry right here in our region," added Mayor Ry Collins of the local Whitsunday Regional Council. <a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=First+Australian-Made+Rocket+Crashes+After+14+Seconds+of+Flight%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fslashdot.org%2Fstory%2F25%2F07%2F30%2F1936241%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fslashdot.org%2Fstory%2F25%2F07%2F30%2F1936241%2Ffirst-australian-made-rocket-crashes-after-14-seconds-of-flight%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>
First Australian-Made Rocket Crashes After 14 Seconds of Flight - Slashdot
Australia
 at Slashdot.
First Australian-Made Rocket Crashes After 14 Seconds of Flight - Slashdot
Australia
Linux Reaches 5% On Desktop Longtime Slashdot reader bobdevine shares a report from OSTechNix: For the first time, Linux has officially broken the 5% desktop market share barrier in the United States of America! It's a huge milestone for open-source and our fantastic Linux community. While many might think of Linux as a niche choice, this new data shows a significant shift is happening. According to the latest StatCounter Global Stats for June 2025, Linux now holds 5.03% of the desktop operating system market share in the United United States of America. This is fantastic news! [...] One truly satisfying detail for me? Linux has finally surpassed the "Unknown" category in the USA! It shows that our growth is clear and recognized. "It took eight years to go from 1% to 2% (by April 2021), then just 2.2 years to reach 3% (June 2023), and a mere 0.7 years to hit 4% (February 2024)," notes the report. "Now, here we are, at over 5% in the USA! This exponential growth suggests that we're on a promising upward trend." <a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Linux+Reaches+5%25+On+Desktop%3A+https%3A%2F%2Flinux.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F25%2F07%2F16%2F2048246%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Flinux.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F25%2F07%2F16%2F2048246%2Flinux-reaches-5-on-desktop%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>
Linux Reaches 5% On Desktop - Slashdot
Longtime Slashdot reader bobdevine shares a report from OSTechNix: For the first time, Linux has officially broken the 5% desktop market share bar...
 at Slashdot.
Linux Reaches 5% On Desktop - Slashdot
Longtime Slashdot reader bobdevine shares a report from OSTechNix: For the first time, Linux has officially broken the 5% desktop market share bar...
Why Your Car's Touchscreen Is More Dangerous Than Your Phone "Modern vehicles have quietly become rolling monuments to terrible user experience, trading intuitive physical controls for flashy but dangerous touchscreen interfaces," argues the site Cars & Horsepower, decrying "an industry-wide plague of poorly designed digital dashboards that demand more attention from drivers than the road itself." The consequences are measurable and severe: studies now show touchscreen vehicles require up to four times longer to perform basic functions than their button-equipped counterparts, creating a distracted driving crisis that automakers refuse to acknowledge. A Swedish car magazine, Vi BilΓ€gare, conducted a study [in 2022] comparing how long it takes drivers to perform basic tasks like adjusting climate controls or changing the radio station using touchscreens versus traditional physical buttons. The results showed that in the worst-performing modern car, it took drivers up to four times longer to complete these tasks compared to an older vehicle with physical controls... Even after allowing drivers time to familiarize themselves with each system, touchscreen-equipped cars consistently required more time and attention, which could translate into increased distraction and reduced safety on the road.... A seminal 2019 study from the University of Utah found drivers using touchscreens exhibited: - 30% longer reaction times to road hazards - Significantly higher cognitive workload (as measured by pupil dilation) - More frequent and longer glances away from the road The reason lies in proprioception β€” our body's ability to sense its position in space. Physical controls allow for muscle memory development; drivers can locate and manipulate buttons without looking. Touchscreens destroy this capability, forcing visual confirmation for every interaction. Even haptic feedback (those little vibrations mimicking physical buttons) fails to solve the problem, as demonstrated by a 2022 AAA study showing haptic systems offered no safety improvement over standard touchscreens... A study from Drexel University introduced a system called [Distract-R](), which uses cognitive modeling to simulate how drivers interact with in-vehicle interfaces. It found that multi-step touchscreen tasks increase cognitive load, diverting attention from the road more than physical buttons.... Furthermore, a systematic review on driver distraction in the context of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and Automated Driving Systems (ADS) highlights that even with automation, drivers remain vulnerable to distraction, especially when interacting with complex interfaces... There's also software reliability issues (even before the issue of "feature paywalls"). But some manufacturers are going back, according to the article. "After receiving widespread criticism, Porsche added physical climate controls back to the Taycan's center console. Nissan's latest concepts feature prominent physical buttons for common functions..." And Mazda eliminated touch capability entirely while moving, "forcing use of a physical control knob... The system reduces glance time by 15% compared to touch interfaces while maintaining all modern infotainment functionality." The article recommends consumers prioritize physical controls when vehicle shopping, seeking out models with buttons. But there's also "aftermarket solutions," with companies like Analog Automotive "developing physical control panels that interface with popular infotainment systems, bringing back tactile operation." Another option: voice commands (like on GM's latest systems). "Ultimately, the solution requires consumer pushback against dangerous interface trends.... The road deserves our full attention, not divided focus between driving and debugging a poorly designed tablet on wheels." Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article. <a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Why+Your+Car's+Touchscreen+Is+More+Dangerous+Than+Your+Phone%3A+https%3A%2F%2Ftech.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F25%2F06%2F22%2F0044222%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftech.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F25%2F06%2F22%2F0044222%2Fwhy-your-cars-touchscreen-is-more-dangerous-than-your-phone%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>
Why Your Car
&#34;Modern vehicles have quietly become rolling monuments to terrible user experience, trading intuitive physical controls for flashy but dangerou...
 at Slashdot.
Why Your Car
&#34;Modern vehicles have quietly become rolling monuments to terrible user experience, trading intuitive physical controls for flashy but dangerou...