Yes - unusually (uniquely?) bad for an official API.
Which is a real bummer because it’s otherwise solid with excellent caching.
My feelings are kind of split about it. On one hand, yes, I don't like it when a company essentially go through my history, train with it, and try to earn more profits for themselves based on what I've "unwillingly contributed". But then on the other hand, I also know that DeepSeek will release the weights they train (and publish new architecture upgrades) so me and others can download them and run them ourselves, as well as they'll earn more profits based on it. Then it's no longer so black and white for me, and I kind of feel like I'm not so bothered by it as when Anthropic and others do it.
I'd still prefer it wasn't like that, but I guess it's a compromise ultimately, at least I'll be able to run it myself.
I've had the same thoughts, and I think you articulated them pretty well; maybe better than I could have. I.e., for me it's something like: I'm much more willing to share if I know the party I share with will share back, in turn.
I know it's more complicated than that, with economics and privacy factors involved. But if I operate on the assumption that real privacy is real hard I'd rather just be guarded and careful with my prompts and whatever output I give to the LLM and expect that it will be training on that, rather than spill all my darkest secrets to some other LLM provider that pinkie-promises privacy only to leak it publicly later, anyway.