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

Anyone got a contact at OpenAI. They have a spider problem

mailman.nanog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 400 posts

Re: Anyone got a contact at OpenAI. They have a spider problem

#301

Post by FridgeSeal »

sarah_eu wrote: post #80
ezekg wrote: post #71

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…

Well it will be multimodal, training and inferring on feeds of distributed sensing networks; radio, optical, acoustic, accelerometer, vibration, anything that's in your phone and much besides. I think the time of the text-only transformer has already passed.

That doesn’t get around the root problem, just gives us multi-modal junk results lol.

Re: Anyone got a contact at OpenAI. They have a spider problem

#302

Post by FridgeSeal »

ezekg wrote: post #71

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…

I for one, welcome the junk-data-ouroboros-meta-model-collapse. I think it’ll force us out of this local maxima of “moar data moar good” mindset, and give us collectively, a chance to evaluate the effect these things have our society. Some proverbial breathing room.

Re: Anyone got a contact at OpenAI. They have a spider problem

#303

Post by fragmede »

michaelt wrote: post #277
fragmede wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most interesting traffic is encrypted as well encrypted with an algorithm currently considered to be un-brute-forcible. If you presume we'll be able to decrypt today's encrypted transmissions in, say, 50-100 years, I'd record the encrypted transmission if I were the NSA.

It's a big data centre. But is it big enough to store 50 years worth of encrypted transmissions? Far cheaper to simply have spies infiltrate the ~3 companies that hold the keys to 98% of internet traffic.

Of everyone's? No. But enough to store the signal messages of the President, down a couple of levels? I hope so. After I'm dead, I hope the messages between the President, his cabinet, and their immediate contacts that weren't previously accessible get released to historians.

Re: Anyone got a contact at OpenAI. They have a spider problem

#304

Post by [deleted] »

1317 wrote: post #259

He's not done his robots.txt properly, he's commented out the bit that actually disallows it # silly bing #User-agent: Amazonbot #Disallow: / # buzz off #User-agent: GPTBot #Disallow: / # Don't Allow everyone User-agent: * Disallow: /archive # slow down, dudes #Crawl-delay: 60

[deleted]

Re: Anyone got a contact at OpenAI. They have a spider problem

#305

Post by digging »

TrevorJ wrote: post #241
digging wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an explanation of why their answers can be useful, but doesn't relate to their ability to "not know" an answer

Sure it does, if those tokens appear in the training data.

No, that's the same misunderstanding previously stated.

Answering "I don't know" because it a likely response to a particular string is completely different from being aware that one does not know the answer and saying so.

Both motivations lead to the same outcome, but they're unrelated processes. The response "I don't know" can represent either:

1. The most likely answer to a particular question, based on statistical data; or

2. An expression of an agent's internal state.

Figuring out that distinction is perhaps one of the most important questions ever raised.

Re: Anyone got a contact at OpenAI. They have a spider problem

#306

Post by prepend »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #300
mgsouth wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If, like me, you didn't get the joke at first: Both of the first two logicians wanted a beer; otherwise they would know the answer was "no". The third logician recognizes this, and therefore knows the answer.

Unless one of those wanted two beers. Or 0.5 beer. Or -1 beers. Or 1e9 beers. Or 2147483648 beers.

He didn’t know perfectly, but he knew with great enough probability to place an order. In the very small chance that someone wanted two beers, someone would speak up.

This way is logically most efficient to work and involve the least communication.

Re: Anyone got a contact at OpenAI. They have a spider problem

#307

Post by prepend »

singingfish wrote: post #233
aidenn0 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm really cross that the word "hallucination" has taken off to describe this as it's clearly in incorrect word. The correct word to describe it is "confabulation", which is clinically more accurate and a much clearer descriptor of what's actually going on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

I think hallucination is better and more accurate at it implies a bit of imagination and buffoonery deceit.

I don’t think confabulate matches as well as it implies confusion or mixture of different ideas.

ChatGPT isn’t confused, it’s making things up. It’s trying to bullshit as best it can in hope that what it makes up convinces its user.

Re: Anyone got a contact at OpenAI. They have a spider problem

#308

Post by mkl »

SrslyJosh wrote: post #256
ezekg wrote: post #71

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…

Everyone saying "ouroboros": The phrase you're looking for is "human centipede". =)

No, the point is it's a circle, with the output feeding back into the input.

Re: Anyone got a contact at OpenAI. They have a spider problem

#309

Post by nitwit005 »

dhosek wrote: post #266

Am I the only one who was hoping—even though I knew it wouldn’t be the case—that OpenAI’s server farm was infested with actual spiders and they were getting into other people’s racks?

I was hoping that some large set of keywords generated spider images.

Re: Anyone got a contact at OpenAI. They have a spider problem

#310

Post by RIMR »

TechDebtDevin wrote: post #111
samsullivan wrote: post #85

With all the news about scraping legality you'd think a multi billion dollar AI company would try to obfuscate their attempts.

If you're not walling off your content behind a login that contains terms that you agree to not scraping, then, scraping that site is 100% legal. Robots.txt isn't a legal document.

>Robots.txt isn't a legal document.

ROBOTS.TXT is an implied license, just like LICENSE.MD or LICENSE.TXT in any GitHub repo. There are decades of precedent that the ROBOTS.TXT file communicates what is and isn't allowed when scaping web content, and that you should check that file before scraping the rest of the site.

Willfully violating a written license provided in a predictable format absolutely is a civil legal violation. If your license says "You cannot use this to train AI", and an AI company scrapes it up and trains an AI on it anyway, even though you did your due diligence to communicate your terms, then you have a legal right to seek damages if you can prove that they are violating your license.

You're basically arguing that no reasonable web scraper would know about ROBOTS.TXT. That's bullshit, this method of web robot control has existed since 1996. It would be like violating the license terms of a GitHub project, and claiming that you didn't know that the LICENSE.MD / LICENSE.TXT file was a license you were expected to follow...

Post reply on HN