OpenAI threatens to revoke o1 access for asking it about its chain of thought

Post by oldpersonintx » Fri, Sep 13, 2024, 11:39 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #93

DiscourseFan wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wizard of Oz. There is no magic, it's all smoke and mirrors. 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…

Post by greenchair » Fri, Sep 13, 2024, 11:41 PM UTC

IncreasePosts wrote: post #33

contravariant wrote: post #4

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…

Or, without the safety prompts, it outputs stuff that would be a PR nightmare. Like, if someone asked it to explain differing violent crime rates in America based on race and one of the pathways the CoT takes is that black people are more murderous than white people. Even if the specific reasoning is abandoned later, it would still be ugly.

Post by n42 » Fri, Sep 13, 2024, 11:48 PM UTC

pixelbro wrote: post #179

n42 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe we're just disagreeing on a legal interpretation vs a more literal interpretation of a term that is thrown around somewhat loosely. fwiw I agree with what you're getting at with your original response. maybe I'm arguing semantics. the more I think about your point that this is just competitive behavior the more I question what the term anti-competive even means

Competition is important for maintaining a healthy marketplace. Any behavior that makes it harder for others to compete, reducing the amount of competition, is therefore bad. That's what anticompetitive means. I don't think protecting trade secrets is sabotaging the competition though.

Post by sickblastoise » Fri, Sep 13, 2024, 11:52 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #93

DiscourseFan wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wizard of Oz. There is no magic, it's all smoke and mirrors. 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…

Post by HarHarVeryFunny » Fri, Sep 13, 2024, 11:53 PM UTC

GaggiX wrote: post #44

mjburgess wrote: post #8

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…

>the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset of people repairing chatgpt's lack of reasoning capabilities. I think there is a really strong reinforcement learning component with the training of this model and how it has learned to perform the chain of thought.