111–120 of 400 posts
With all the news about scraping legality you'd think a multi billion dollar AI company would try to obfuscate their attempts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about making it slow? One byte at a time for example while keeping the connection open
A slow stream that never ends?
I'm sure the big players like Google would deal with it gracefully.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The end state of training on web text has always been an ouroboros - primarily because of adtech incentives to produce low quality content at scale to capture micro pennies. The irony of the whole thing is brutal.
> The end state of training on web text has always been an ouroboros And when other mediums have been saturated with AI? Books, music, radio, podcasts, movies -- what then? Do we need a (curated?) unadulterated stockpile of human content to avoid the enshittification of everything?
Either that, or a human level AI.
This reminds me of how GPT-2/3/J came across https://reddit.com/r/counting , wherein redditors repeatedly post incremental numbers to count to infinity. It considered their usernames, like SolidGoldMagikarp, such common strings on the Internet that, during tokenization, it treated them as top-level tokens of their own. https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/8viQEp8KBg2QSW4Yc/solid... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LAx…
I wonder how much the source content is the cause of hallucinations rather than anything inherent to LLMs. I mean if someone posts a question on an internet forum that I don't know the answer to, I'm certainly not going to post "I don't know" since that wouldn't be useful. In fact, in general, in any non one-on-one conversation the answer "I don't know" is not useful because if you don't know in a group, your silence…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The end state of training on web text has always been an ouroboros And when other mediums have been saturated with AI? Books, music, radio, podcasts, movies -- what then? Do we need a (curated?) unadulterated stockpile of human content to avoid the enshittification of everything?
>Do we need a (curated?) unadulterated stockpile of human content to avoid the enshittification of everything? Either that, or a human level AI.
I’d let them do their thing, why not?! They want the internet? This is the real internet. It looks like he doesn’t really care that much that they’re retrieving millions of pages, so let them do their thing…
This reminds me of how GPT-2/3/J came across https://reddit.com/r/counting , wherein redditors repeatedly post incremental numbers to count to infinity. It considered their usernames, like SolidGoldMagikarp, such common strings on the Internet that, during tokenization, it treated them as top-level tokens of their own. https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/8viQEp8KBg2QSW4Yc/solid... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LAx…
This reminds me of how GPT-2/3/J came across https://reddit.com/r/counting , wherein redditors repeatedly post incremental numbers to count to infinity. It considered their usernames, like SolidGoldMagikarp, such common strings on the Internet that, during tokenization, it treated them as top-level tokens of their own. https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/8viQEp8KBg2QSW4Yc/solid... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LAx…
I wonder how much the source content is the cause of hallucinations rather than anything inherent to LLMs. I mean if someone posts a question on an internet forum that I don't know the answer to, I'm certainly not going to post "I don't know" since that wouldn't be useful. In fact, in general, in any non one-on-one conversation the answer "I don't know" is not useful because if you don't know in a group, your silence…
This isn't true. There are many contexts where it is true but it doesn't actually generalize they way you say it does.
There are plenty of cases where experts in a non-one-on-one context will express a lack of knowledge. Sometimes this will be as part of making point about the broader epistemic state of the group, sometimes it will be simply to clarify the epistemic state of the speaker.
Isn’t the legality of web scraping still..disputed? There’s been a few projects I’ve wanted to work on involving scraping, but the idea that the entire thing could be shut down with legal threats seems to make some of the ideas infeasible. It’s strange that OpenAI has created a ~$80B company (or whatever it is) using data gathered via scraping and as far as I’m aware there haven’t been any legal threats. Was there so…
Web scraping the public Internet is legal, at least in the U.S. hiQ's public scraping of LinkedIn was ruled to be within their rights and not a violation of the CFAA. I imagine that's why LinkedIn has almost everything behind an auth wall now. Scraping auth-walled data is different. When you sign up, you have to check "I agree to the terms," and the terms generally say, "You can't scrape us." So, you can't just make…
They're legally enforceable in the sense that the scraped services generally reserve the right to terminate the authorizing account at will, or legally enforceable in that allowing someone to scrape you with your credentials (or scraping using someone else's) qualifies as violating the CFAA?