All I said was that free users cost them money, so it's reasonable for them to try to recover those costs. I never claimed that free users are a drain on them, so I won't even respond to the rest of your comment.

[–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Opt out means "we will be doing this, without permission, unless you tell us not to" and opt in means "if you give us permission we will do this." Codebases can contain important and sensitive information, and sending it off to some server to be shoved into an LLM is something that should be done with care. Getting affirmative consent is the bare minimum.

[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I disagree about what the bare minimum is. It's not uninformed. They tell you about it, and tell you you can opt out. I don't really see how that would be them doing it without permission.

[–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Why isn't "it's informed and you can just opt out" good enough for paid users? They could've developed a single system instead of two if that's a sufficient standard of care for users' data.

[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 19 hours ago

It is good enough. I wouldn't have cared if they did make paid users opt out. I think it's a courtesy to their paid users, not an attack on their free users, that they allow paid users to opt in instead of opting out.

Also, there's no way they developed a whole separate system for this. It's likely a single line boolean check.