61–70 of 135 posts
lol I literally found the same attack months ago, posted to Reddit and nobody cared. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/156aaea/interestin...
lol I literally found the same attack months ago, posted to Reddit and nobody cared. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/156aaea/interestin...
Should be a good food for the lawsuits. Some lawsuits were based on a hallucinated acknowledgement of the model that it used some particular materials, and this was clearly nonsense. Here, this is a bit more solid ground, provided that copyrighted material can be sampled and an owner would be interested in a class action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like copyright washing if there is such thing.
If that's copyright washing so are Cliff's Notes.
A cover band who plays Beatles songs = great An artist who paints you a picture in the style of so-and-so = great
An AI who is trained on Beatles songs and can write new ones = exploitative, stealing, etc. An AI who paints you a picture in the style of so-and-so = get the pitchforks, Big Tech wants to kill art!
Wouldn't it be rather simple for OpenAI to fix this? if output[-10:] in training_data: increase_temperature()
Wouldn't it be rather simple for OpenAI to fix this? if output[-10:] in training_data: increase_temperature()
No, not at all, given training_data is in the hundreds of gigabytes, and this search would need to be run on every single token (for in-flight temperature adjustment).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like copyright washing if there is such thing.
If that's copyright washing so are Cliff's Notes.
>[...] company, company, company, company. I'm sorry, I can't generate text infinitely due to my programming limitations. But you got the idea.
Depending on the prompt, sometimes it just refuses to follow the instruction. That's understandable, I wouldn't either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's copyright washing so are Cliff's Notes.
Yup, though a lot of people are acting now as though every already-established principle of fair use needs to be revised suddenly by adding a bunch of "...but if this is done by any form of AI, then it's copyright infringement." A cover band who plays Beatles songs = great An artist who paints you a picture in the style of so-and-so = great An AI who is trained on Beatles songs and can write new ones = exploitative,…
Has to pay the Beatles for the pleasure of doing so.
How can they be so sure the model isn’t just hallucinating? It can also hallucinate real facts from the training data. However, that doesn’t mean the entire output is directly from the training data. Also, is there any real world use case? I couldn’t think of a case where this would be able to extract something meaningful and relevant to what the attackers were trying to accomplish.