91–100 of 323 posts
The name "OpenAI" is a contraction since they don't seem "open" in any way. The only way I see "open" applying is "open for business."
I went to Burger King and there was no royalty working there at all!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yip. It's pretty obvious this 'innovation' is just based off training data collected from chain-of-thought prompting by people, ie., the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset of people repairing chatgpt's lack of reasoning capabilities. No wonder then, that many of the benchmarks they've tested on would be no doubt, in that very training dataset, repaired expertly by people running those benchmarks on chatgpt. T…
It seems like the best AI models are increasingly just combinations of writings of various people thrown together. Like they hired a few hundred professors, journalists and writers to work with the model and create material for it, so you just get various combinations of their contributions. It's very telling that this model, for instance, is extraordinarily good at STEM related queries, but much worse (and worse eve…
O1 is supposed to be a reasoning model, so I don't think judging it by its English composition abilities is quite fair.
When they release a true next-gen successor to GPT-4 (Orion, or whatever), we may see improvements. Everyone complains about the "ChatGPTese" writing style, and surely they'll fix that eventually.
>Like they hired a few hundred professors, journalists and writers to work with the model and create material for it, so you just get various combinations of their contributions.
I'm doubtful. The most prolific (human) author is probably Charles Hamilton, who wrote 100 million words in his life. Put through the GPT tokenizer, that's 133m tokens. Compared to the text training data for a frontier LLM (trillions or tens of trillions of tokens), it's unrealistic that human experts are doing any substantial amount of bespoke writing. They're probably mainly relying on synthetic data at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yip. It's pretty obvious this 'innovation' is just based off training data collected from chain-of-thought prompting by people, ie., the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset of people repairing chatgpt's lack of reasoning capabilities. No wonder then, that many of the benchmarks they've tested on would be no doubt, in that very training dataset, repaired expertly by people running those benchmarks on chatgpt. T…
It seems like the best AI models are increasingly just combinations of writings of various people thrown together. Like they hired a few hundred professors, journalists and writers to work with the model and create material for it, so you just get various combinations of their contributions. It's very telling that this model, for instance, is extraordinarily good at STEM related queries, but much worse (and worse eve…
The models and prompts are all monkey-patched and this isn't a step towards general superintelligence. Just hacks.
And once you realize that, you realize that there is no moat for the existing product. Throw some researchers and GPUs together and you too can have the same system.
It wouldn't be so bad for ClopenAI if every company under the sun wasn't also trying to build LLMs and agents and chains of thought. But as it stands, one key insight from one will spread through the entire ecosystem and everyone will have the same capability.
This is all great from the perspective of the user. Unlimited competition and pricing pressure.
The o1 model already pretty much explains exactly how it runs the chain of thought though? Unless there is some special system instruction that you've specifically fine tuned for?
I too am confused by this. When using the chatgpt.com interface it seems to expose its chain-of-thought quite obviously? Or the "chain-of-thought" available from chatgpt.com isn't the real chain-of-thought? Here's an example screenshot: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/ecpbkt0yforhf20/chain-of...
The words "internal thought process" seem to flag my questions. Just asking for an explanation of thoughts doesn't. If I ask for an explanation of "internal feelings" next to a math questions, I get this interesting snippet back inside of the "Thought for n seconds" block: > Identifying and solving > I’m mapping out the real roots of the quadratic polynomial 6x^2 + 5x + 1, ensuring it’s factorized into irreducible el…
I've often thought of using the words "internal reactions" as a euphemism for emotions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not sampling from prior conversations. The model constructs abstracted representations of the domain-specific reasoning traces. Then it applies these reasoning traces in various combinations to solve unseen problems. If you want to call that sampling, then you might as well call everything sampling.
They're generative models. By definition, they are sampling from a joint distribution of text tokens fit by approximation to an empirical distribution.
I can trivially define the entirety of all nerve impulses reaching and exiting your brain as a "distribution" in your usage of the term. And then all possible actions and experiences are just "sampling" that "distribution" as well. But that definition is meaningless.
Would be funny if there was a human in the loop that they're trying to hide
I mean, say what you want about Meta only releasing the weights and calling it open source, what they're doing is better than this.
Facebook created products to induce mental illness for the lolz (and bank accounts I guess?) of the lizards behind it[0] IMHO people like these are the most dangerous to human society, because unlike regular criminals, they find their ways around the consequences to their actions. [0] https://slate.com/technology/2017/11/facebook-was-designed-t...
The name "OpenAI" is a contraction since they don't seem "open" in any way. The only way I see "open" applying is "open for business."
Will this ever die? It feels like every time a post is made about OpenAI that someone loves to mention it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Occam's razor: there is no secret sauce and they're afraid someone trains a model on the output like what happened soon after the release of GPT-4. They basically said as much in the official announcement, you hardly even have to read between the lines.
Yip. It's pretty obvious this 'innovation' is just based off training data collected from chain-of-thought prompting by people, ie., the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset of people repairing chatgpt's lack of reasoning capabilities. No wonder then, that many of the benchmarks they've tested on would be no doubt, in that very training dataset, repaired expertly by people running those benchmarks on chatgpt. T…
ps: actually maybe Amazon marketplace. probably others too.