171–180 of 400 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
didn't click through to the site, didja?
I did. What's your point? It doesn't negate anything I wrote.
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?
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…
Eventually, OpenAI (and friends) are going to be training their models on almost exclusively AI generated content, which is more often than not slightly incorrect when it comes to Q&A, and the quality of AI responses trained on that content will quickly deteriorate. Right now, most internet content is written by humans. But in 5 years? Not so much. I think this is one of the big problems that the AI space needs to so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Got a source for that?
Want a real conspiracy? What do you think the NSA is storing in that datacenter in Utah? Power point presentations? All that data is going to be trained into large models. Every phone call you ever had and every email you ever wrote. They are likely pumping enormous money into it as we speak, probably with the help of OpenAI, Microsoft and friends.
Honeypots like this seem like a super interesting way to poison LLM training.
What exactly is this website? I don’t get it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a good observation. If LLMs had taken off 15 years ago, maybe they would answer every question with “this has already been asked before. Please use the search function”
I thought LLMs don't say when they don't know something because of how they are tuned and because of RLHF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of crawlers, if not all, have a policy like "if you disallow our robot, it might take a day or two before it notices". They surely follow the path "check if we have robots.txt that allows us to scan this site, if we don't get and store robots.txt, scan at least the root of the site and its links". There won't be a second scan, and they consider that they are respecting robots.txt. Kind of "better ask for forgiv…
That is indistinguishable from not respecting robots.txt. There is a robots.txt on the root the first time they ask for it, and they read the page and follow its links regardless.
For those bad crawlers, which I very much disapprove, "not respecting robots.txt" equals "don't even read robots.txt, or if I read it ignore it completely". For them, "respecting robots.txt" means "scan the page for potential links, and after that parse and respect robots.txt". Which I disapprove and don't condone.
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…
Because expecting a behaviour, like knowing you don't know, that isn't represented in the training set is silly.
Kids make stuff up at first, then we correct them - so they have a way to learn not to.