Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT-4 details leaked?

threadreaderapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 648 posts

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#261

Post by BoorishBears »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #113
BoorishBears wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this commentary was pithier in your head... https://hackernoon.com/how-openai-transitioned-from-a-nonpro...

A "capped" profit of 100x is absolutely ridiculous. That is not even the slightest attempt to stay in the same ballpark as nonprofit. Blaming any loss of Elon money for that is spin. And he still gave them a hundred million.

Not sure what you're on about, both my comment and the article are about how they went for-profit.

They went for-profit because they needed to raise.

They raised after Elon reneged a fraction of the way into his promise of $1B. (and not 100MM deep: he silently revised his figures after TC started digging.)

It's not complicated but you seem to want to make it complicated.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#262

Post by relativ575 »

bayindirh wrote: post #176
rebolek wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had nuclear weapons for almost 80 years and the world still hasn't ended. And I think that nuclear weapons are way more dangerous than Markov chains on steroids.

I can't launch a tactical nuke because somebody wronged me, but can create a disinformation campaign with the tools I have and optionally 2-3 smart, motivated individuals, for free. Both can be equally devastating. Or, if I want to go the extra mile, I can use the latter to create motivation for the utilization of the former. e.g. I may say that a country has WMDs, and maybe try to manufacture consent for destruction…

> can create a disinformation campaign with the tools I have and optionally 2-3 smart, motivated individuals, for free

You can, and it may cause unbelievably nuisance, but not to the devastating outcome of a tactical nuke. Can you prove otherwise? Russian disinformation came close, such as the 2016 election, but that was state sponsored.

> Or, if I want to go the extra mile, I can use the latter to create motivation for the utilization of the former. e.g. I may say that a country has WMDs, and maybe try to manufacture consent for destruction of these...

You cannot. It was still state's action. Not to mention that many countries had their own intelligence that no doubt had different assessment. They weren't blind. They used WMD argument as the excuse to join the US led war.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#263

Post by ly3xqhl8g9 »

notahacker wrote: post #255
ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Already copyright laws do not offer protection for writers (see the current [screen]writers strike [1]), visual artists, musicians (see the recent Taylor Swift re-recording debacle [2]), not to speak of the "lower" arts, crafts & merch, where colossi such as H&M and Zara steal art, designs, concepts regularly [3] (not to even mention the sweatshops). Copyright laws, or in fact generally laws, are for the rich and pow…

Ask someone on the screenwriters' strike if they'd rather copyright was eliminated so they didn't get paid at all...

Most of them already don't get paid, hence the strike [1].

[1] "Writers say they want a living wage as streaming devalues their work even as it demands more of their time.", https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/writers-strike-2023-...

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#264

Post by twayt »

capableweb wrote: post #203
twayt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libgen / Scihub or not, if the model can provide details about the book other than just high level info like the summary and no explicit deal with the publisher has been made, you can make a strong argument that it is plagiarism. Even if bits and pieces of the book text are distributed across the internet and you end up picking up portions of the book, you still read the book. It is extremely sad but ChatGPT will be…

I'm not a lawyer and obviously we won't get any definite answer unless it actually goes to court, all of this is just hand waving and guessing. But I think that unless GPT starts reciting large parts outside of the context of learning/education/research, reciting smaller snippets would fall into "fair use" and not be illegal.

If you recite enough small snippets, you make a large one.

Especially with ChatGPT you can probe the model by asking certain questions about the material at hand to see if it has seen the entire book.

Also you don’t have to be able to recite the book verbatim for it to have been in your training set. The snippets I am referring to are on the side of the training data

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#265

Post by moolcool »

varispeed wrote: post #259
DeathArrow wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, the guys developing ML algorithms like Neural nets, Linear regression, Decision tree, SVM, Naive Bayes, KNN etc., weren't doing science?

It's like asking whether a carpenter is a scientist because they developed a cabinet...

I think that you could genuinely make that argument though.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#266

Post by steppi »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #229
PostOnce wrote: post #19

"Open" AI, a charity to benefit us all by pushing and publishing the frontier of scientific knowledge. Nevermind, fuckers, actually it's just to take your jobs and make a few VCs richer. We'll keep the science a secret and try to pressure the government into making it illegal for you to compete with us. https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp https://github.com/openlm-research/open_llama https://huggingface.co/TheBlok…

>> We'll keep the science a secret and try to pressure the government into making it illegal for you to compete with us. Just to be clear, there's no science being kept secret because there is no science being done. OpenAI's is a feat of engineering, borne aloft by a huge budget supporting a large team whose expertise lies in tuning neural net systems, and not in doing science. Machine learning, as it is practiced to…

I don't think things are quite as dire as that. I have experience as a machine learning scientist, have actually never worked on the kinds of papers you're talking about, but have helped apply machine learning to scientific problems. First in a systems biology lab for tasks upstream of drug discovery, and then in industry for credit risk modeling. I've mostly just used classical machine learning or Bayesian machine learning models though.

My interest has always been in using machine learning as a tool to help understand some underlying phenomena, not in trying to push to the top of the leaderboard on benchmark datasets. I think this kind of attitude isn't uncommon in academic labs focused on doing real science, though the methods used aren't necessarily state of the art, and ML typically plays only a supporting role.

Curiously, I'm going to present at a conference later today and will give a toy example showing why those leaderboards are not necessarily reliable for distinguishing between the quality of different models.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#267

Post by namaria »

ben_w wrote: post #236
wrasee wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand this. Won’t that hurt their progress on GPT-5?

The public position (as opposed to the rumour mills) is that they're not working on a 5, and don't intend to at least until they can figure out how to do it safely.

And safely here means non disruptive to established businesses. If they create a tool so powerful that it can replace entire professional classes, that would just mean people can bypass the employers and get their value directly from an API.

OpenAI needs to make sure they have a business model where they can charge enterprise fees and provide value to corporations, not directly to people. ChatGPT was merely a publicity stunt. I do believe they got scared of how much value people could derive independently from it tho, hence the "regulate this" pressure.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#268

Post by astrange »

rolisz wrote: post #211
astrange wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transformer models rather than LLMs surely. ChatGPT behaves nothing like Google Translate.

The T in ChatGPT stands for Transformers. The similarity between the OG Transformer from 2017 and GPT3 (and other modern LLMs) is pretty big

The data, size and training process are what's different.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#269

Post by agumonkey »

DeathArrow wrote: post #243
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> We'll keep the science a secret and try to pressure the government into making it illegal for you to compete with us. Just to be clear, there's no science being kept secret because there is no science being done. OpenAI's is a feat of engineering, borne aloft by a huge budget supporting a large team whose expertise lies in tuning neural net systems, and not in doing science. Machine learning, as it is practiced to…

Still, the guys developing ML algorithms like Neural nets, Linear regression, Decision tree, SVM, Naive Bayes, KNN etc., weren't doing science?

Yeah to my newb eyes, the core of machine learning can (and probably is) as scientific as any mathematics goes (granted they try novel ideas, and not applying old solutions). Now openai sits more on the scaling/engineering to make his business.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#270

Post by DeathArrow »

varispeed wrote: post #259
DeathArrow wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, the guys developing ML algorithms like Neural nets, Linear regression, Decision tree, SVM, Naive Bayes, KNN etc., weren't doing science?

It's like asking whether a carpenter is a scientist because they developed a cabinet...

Well, Wikipedia might be wrong, but this is how they describe Computer Science: "Computer science is the study of computation, information, and automation. Computer science spans theoretical disciplines (such as algorithms, theory of computation, and information theory) to applied disciplines (including the design and implementation of hardware and software). Though more often considered an academic discipline, computer science is closely related to computer programming."

You might argue, though, that Computer Science is not "real" science.

Post reply on HN