It's a problem with the people in education. Sounds absurd to reduce all of the thousands of school districts; millions of educators, K-12 teachers, professors, and administrators; and multitudes of viewpoints into one "ignorant" block of hapless Luddites.
We've had hundreds of conversations with different schools and teachers. It's definitely a generalization, but it's pretty disheartening how common these are the views.
We've had hundreds of conversations with different schools and teachers
Show me the paper. Let's see what the actual data looks like.
What we're seeing is a new profitable industry, with a tendency towards natural monopoly, refusing to act in the public good because its incentives conflict with it. At stake is the entire corpus of 21st century media, at risk of being drowned out in a tsunami of statistically unidentifiable spam, which has already begun and will only get worse, until nobody will even acknowledge the web post 2022 as worth reading or…
> Open weights models do exist, but they require much greater investment, which many of the abusers aren't willing to make.
I think the biggest concern are state actors who have no problem spending money on some gpus. I don't think it is feasible to watermark open weights LLM outputs.
I knew some people from OpenAI at the time of GPT2 development, and indeed that was their rationale - dangerous and needs to be released responsibly. Never before could people produce so much spam and fake news at once - I think this was the first and main worry.
was? I guess it’s less of a worry now? Why?
The GPT2 weight have later been released which made some people suspect the 'too dangerous to release' stuff was mostly hype/marketing.
Why exactly is it insane ? To reliably differentiate (let's assume it's possible for the sake of argument) between "you made this" and "you didn't make this" or at least "a human made this" seems to carry mostly (if not only) benefits.
the problem is your parenthetical - it's not possible, so attempting to do so isn't actually really possible. what's worse than a watermark? one that doesn't actually work.
> the problem is your parenthetical - it's not possible, so attempting to do so isn't actually really possible. what's worse than a watermark? one that doesn't actually work.
If it's not possible to watermark, then just ban LLMs.
Tech people have this weird self-serving assumption that the tech must be developed and must used, and if it causes harms that can't be mitigated then we must accept the harm and live with it. It's really an anti-humanist, tech-first POV.
"I seem to do fine for a stretch, but at the of the sentence I say the wrong cranberry."
So deliberately bork the output in such a way that users lose all confidence in the product?
no, you modify the output probability so that you sample in a deterministic pseudo-probabilistic way - i.e. save the seed, and insert low SNR bias into the sampling. you can recover the bias afterwards and prove you generated the sequence.
my example was just a reference to Jarvis in the avengers.
the problem is your parenthetical - it's not possible, so attempting to do so isn't actually really possible. what's worse than a watermark? one that doesn't actually work.
Open AI literally said they have a semi-resilient method with 99.9% accuracy. It will become full-resilient for practical purposes if all LLMs implement something similar.
> Open AI literally said they have a semi-resilient method with 99.9% accuracy.
They also said many other things that never happened. And they never showed it. I bet $100 they do not have a semi-resilient method with 99.9% accuracy, especially with all the evolving issues around "human vs computer" made content.
I bet you also the `semi-` in the beginning leaves a lot of room for interpretation and they are not releasing this for more reasons than "our model is too good".
Curious about the idea of watermarking text.
How would one go about embedding a watermark in plain text without altering its readability?
Are there specific techniques or tools designed for this purpose?
To me it seems like a challenging task.
Given the simplicity of text what methods could ensure the watermark remains intact?
Perhaps there’s a way to subtly adjust character frequencies or patterns?
That said I'd love from good sources to delve.
It doesn't seem trackable. And it may not be perfect, but that's no reason to discard it. At the moment, it's being used at a large scale to avoid homework by lazy students, which is nearly everyone. How much further do you want tech to erode education?
Not the parent, but I personally would want tech to erode education exactly to the level where students aren't asked any more to spend time on things that machines can perform trivially for us. Education should prepare us for the real world of today, rather than some make-belief role play version of a bureaucratic office from the late 19th century, where we don't have computers and the only way you have of affecting…
Education should train your brain, not "prepare for the real world," if only because you can't define how to do that, nor what real world needs are. Is math a real world need? Grammar? Geography? Sports? Biology? With the silly reduction to "things that machines can perform trivially for us" even reading and writing won't be needed. And like that, there's suddenly a great surplus of farm hands, miners, and opioid users.
It doesn't seem trackable. And it may not be perfect, but that's no reason to discard it. At the moment, it's being used at a large scale to avoid homework by lazy students, which is nearly everyone. How much further do you want tech to erode education?
My concern isn't the details of tracking, only the fact of it. As for eroding education, I believe 98% of homework is useless for learning. A kid that cheats with gpt is a kid that would cheat off of friends. The tech, in it's cheating and anti cheating, does not degrade or improve the antisocial effects on education.
Those two statements don't bear out. Homework reinforces skills, and practically all kids cheat when the bar is low enough, but that bar doesn't affect their behavior in direct social relations so easily (as you readily admit), and most are really quite honest.
And it's not about tech's anti-social influence in this case, but on the intellectual state of humanity as a whole. We've made a whole generation addicted to their phone, and now you want to remove any bit of knowledge?