> She suggested that OpenAI could have taken steps to anonymize the chat logs but chose not to, only making an argument for why it "would not" be able to segregate data, rather than explaining why it "can’t."
Sounds like bullshit lawyer speak. What exactly is the difference between the two?
Not wanting to do something isn't the same thing as being unable to do something.
!define would
> Used to express desire or intent -- https://www.wordnik.com/words/would
!define cannot
> Can not ( = am/is/are unable to) -- https://www.wordnik.com/words/cannot
Who said anything about not wanting to?
"I will not be able to do this"
"I cannot do this"
There is no semantic or legal difference between the two, especially when coming from a tech company. Stalling and wordplay is a very common legal tactic when the side has no other argument.
The article is derived from the order, which is itself a short summary of conversations had in court.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/NYT-v...
> I asked:
> > Is there a way to segregate the data for the users that have expressly asked for their chat logs to be deleted, or is there a way to anonymize in such a way that their privacy concerns are addressed... what’s the legal issue here about why you can’t, as opposed to why you would not?
> OpenAI expressed a reluctance for a "carte blanche, preserve everything request," and raised not only user preferences and requests, but also "numerous privacy laws and regulations throughout the country and the world that also contemplate these type of deletion requests or that users have these types of abilities."
A "reluctance to retain data" is not the same as "technically or physically unable to retain data". Judge decided OpenAI not wanting to do it was less important than evidence being deleted.
Disagree. There’s something about the “able” that implies a hindered routine ability to do something — you can otherwise do this, but something renders you unable.
“I won’t be able to make the 5:00 dinner.” -> You could normally come, but there’s another obligation. There’s an implication that if the circumstances were different, you might be able to come.
“I cannot make the 5:00 dinner.” -> You could not normally come. There’s a rigid reason for the circumstance, and there is no negotiating it.
If someone was in an accident that rendered them unable to walk, would you say they can or can not walk?