When a startup plugs its proprietary data into a large language model, the implicit question hanging over every API call is existential: Are we building our company, or are we just training our eventual competitor? This core anxiety—the fear that intellectual property is being silently absorbed into the black box of a foundational model—was the central plot point of the recent discussion hosted by Matthew Berman, dissecting the often-opaque terms of service governing the use of OpenAI’s powerful platforms.
Berman spoke with experts about the critical difference between the rights granted to the user for the output generated by the model, and the rights retained by OpenAI regarding the input data used to prompt that output. This distinction is paramount for founders and VCs evaluating the true cost of leveraging third-party AI infrastructure. The consensus among the commentators was stark: default settings, particularly in non-enterprise or consumer-facing products, are often structured to favor the model developer's continuous improvement goals, sometimes at the expense of user confidentiality.
For founders, the immediate insight is that the promise of "you own the output" often masks a significant vulnerability regarding the input. OpenAI’s terms generally grant the user rights to the content generated by the services, but the critical risk lies in the default retention and usage policies for the data fed into the system. If a startup uses sensitive, non-public data—say, a novel dataset of medical records or a unique financial trading strategy—to fine-tune a model via the standard API without specific contractual guarantees or meticulous privacy settings, that data may be retained for up to 30 days for abuse monitoring. More importantly, the terms historically allowed that data to be used for model training unless the user explicitly opted out or used a dedicated zero-retention API endpoint.
"If you are a founder and you are using the default settings, you have to operate under the assumption that your proprietary input is going to be used to train their next generation of models," one commentator noted, highlighting the necessity of proactive legal and technical diligence. This isn't just a hypothetical concern; it touches the core valuation of any AI-native company whose competitive edge rests on unique data or prompt engineering strategies. The moment that secret sauce is ingested by a system that may use it to refine its core offering, the competitive moat begins to erode.
A significant point of analysis centered on the API versus ChatGPT consumer product dichotomy. While OpenAI has implemented stronger data protection guarantees for its enterprise API customers, promising not to use their data for training, many smaller startups and individual developers begin their journey using the less protected consumer interfaces. Transitioning from the free or low-tier service to the fully protected enterprise API requires a level of sophistication and negotiation that many early-stage teams overlook. The initial convenience of rapid prototyping becomes a legal liability once the company scales and the IP becomes valuable. The risk is that a company's initial, formative IP is already baked into the publicly available model before they upgrade their contractual protections.
The discussion also delved into the complex issue of indemnification. OpenAI has offered indemnification to enterprise users, promising to cover legal costs if the model's output infringes on a third party’s copyright. While this is a welcome shield against copyright trolls targeting AI-generated imagery or text, it entirely misses the primary concern for founders: the leakage of their own proprietary input data. Indemnification protects the user against external claims related to the output, but it offers no recourse for the internal loss of trade secrets used as the prompt. This creates a false sense of security where founders believe they are fully protected simply because they have indemnification, when in fact, their most valuable asset—their data—remains vulnerable to absorption into the training corpus.
The consensus takeaway for the audience of founders and VCs was clear: reliance on implicit assurances or generic terms of service is insufficient when dealing with frontier AI models. Due diligence must extend beyond performance benchmarks to rigorous data governance reviews. Startups must prioritize the zero-retention API endpoints from day one, even if they are more complex or costly to implement. Furthermore, any fine-tuning process involving proprietary datasets must be conducted in environments where contractual guarantees explicitly prohibit the data from being used in the generalized training of the foundational model. The conversation underscored that while AI offers immense leverage, that leverage comes tethered to a contractual reality where the platform provider holds significant default power over the most sensitive asset a startup possesses.
