131–140 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."
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.
That's definitely weird, and I wonder how legal it is.
They can charge whatever they want.
Okay this is just getting suspicious. Their excuses for keeping the chain of thought hidden are dubious at best [1], and honestly just seemed anti-competitive if anything. Worst is their argument that they want to monitor it for attempts to escape the prompt, but you can't. However the weirdest is that they note that: > for this to work the model must have freedom to express its thoughts in unaltered form, so we cann…
Another Occam's Razor option: OpenAI, the company known for taking a really good AI and putting so many bumpers on it that, at least for a while, it wouldn't help with much and lectured about safety if you so much as suggested that someone die in a story or something, may just not want us to see that it potentially has thoughts that aren't pure enough for our sensitive eyes. It's ridiculous but if they can't filter t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're generative models. By definition, they are sampling from a joint distribution of text tokens fit by approximation to an empirical distribution.
Again, you're stretching definitions into meaninglessness. The way you are using "sampling" and "distribution" here applies to any system processing any information. Yes, humans as well. 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. B…
Eg., you can describe a coin flip as a sampling from the space, {H,T} -- but insofar as we're talking about an actual coin, there's a causal mechanism -- and this description fails (eg., one can design a coin flipper to deterministically flip to heads).
In the case of a transformer model, and all generative statistical models, these are actually learning distributions. The model is essentially constituted by a fit to a prior distribution. And when computing a model output, it is sampling from this fit distribution.
ie., the relevant state of the graphics card which computes an output token is fully described by an equation which is a sampling from an empirical distribution (of prior text tokens).
Your nervous system is a causal mechanism which is not fully described by sampling from this outcome space. There is no where in your body that stores all possible bodily states in an outcome space: this space would require more atoms in the universe to store.
So this isn't the case for any causal mechanism. Reality itself comprises essential properties which interact with each other in ways that cannot be reduced to sampling. Statistical models are therefore never models of reality essentially, but basically circumstantial approximations.
I'm not stretching definitions into meaninglessness, these are the ones given by AI researchers, of which I am one.
The best part is that you still get charged per token for those CoT tokens that you're not allowed to ask it about.
It sounds bad, but you don’t have to use it as a consumer because you have a choice. This is different from electric bills where you can’t unplug it.
Would be funny if there was a human in the loop that they're trying to hide
In the early days of Google, when I worked on websearch, if people asked me what I did there, I'd say: "I answer all the queries that start with S."
https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterh...
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.
So, basically they want to create something that is intelligent, yet it is not allowed to share or teach any of this intelligence.... Seems to be something evil.
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…
Okay this is just getting suspicious. Their excuses for keeping the chain of thought hidden are dubious at best [1], and honestly just seemed anti-competitive if anything. Worst is their argument that they want to monitor it for attempts to escape the prompt, but you can't. However the weirdest is that they note that: > for this to work the model must have freedom to express its thoughts in unaltered form, so we cann…
A private chain of thought can be unconstrained in terms of alignment. That actually sounds beneficial given that RLHF has been shown to decrease model performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can charge whatever they want.
In my country, it's illegal to charge different people differently if there's no explicitly signed agreement where the both sides agree to it. Without an agreement, there must be a reasonable and verifiable justification for a change in the price. I think suddenly charging you $100 more (compared to other consumers) without explaining how you calculated it is somewhat illegal here.