(1) With limited well scoped exclusions for lawyers, medical records, erc.
Legally that is a correct statement.
If you want that changed, it will require legislation.
As others have said, in the United States this is, legally, completely correct: there is no right to privacy in American law. Lots of people think the Fourth Amendment is a general right to privacy, and they are wrong: the Fourth Amendment is specifically about government search and seizure, and courts have been largely consistent about saying it does not extend beyond that to e.g. relationships with private parties.
If you want a right to privacy, you will need to advocate for laws to be changed; the ones as they exist now do not give it to you.
A company like OpenAI that offers a SaaS is no such friend, and in such power dynamics (individual VS company) it's probably in your best interest to have everything public if necessary.
Why tangle the data of people with very different preferences than yours up in that?
First time?
Why should two entities not be able to have a confidential interaction if that is what they both want? Certainly a court order could supersede such a right just as it could most others provided sufficient evidence. However I would expect such things to be both highly justified and narrowly targeted.
This specific case isn't so much about a right to privacy as it is a more general freedom to enter into contracts with others and expect those to be honored.
Is this referring to some actual legal precedent, or just your personal opinion?
You might have heard of the GDPR, but even before that, several countries had "privacy by default" laws on the books.
Your comment is dystopian given how the interaction is basically like how some people treat ai as their "friend" imagine no matter what encrypted messaging app or smth they use, the govt still snoops
