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

Post by DoesntMatter22 » Sat, Sep 14, 2024, 6:58 AM UTC

kgeist wrote: post #167

rmbyrro wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no change in price. They charge the same amount per token from everyone. You pay more if you use more tokens. If some tokens are hidden, used internally to generate the final 'public' tokens is just a matter of technical implementation and business choice. If you're not happy, don't use the service.

Well imagine how it looks from the point of view of anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws: we charge this person an additional $100 because we have some imaginary units telling us they owe us $100... Just trust us. Not sure it will hold in court. If the both sides agree to a specific sum beforehand, no problem. But you can't just charge random amounts post factum without the person having any idea why they…

Post by mjburgess » Sat, Sep 14, 2024, 7:23 AM UTC

accountnum wrote: post #184

mjburgess wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, causation isnt distribution sampling. And there's a difference between, say, an extrinsic description of a system and it's essential properties. 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…

I'm going to simply address what I think are your main points here. There is nowhere that an LLM stores all possible outputs. Causality can trivially be represented by sampling by including the ordering of events, which you also implicitly did for LLMs. The coin is an arbitrary distinction, you are never just modeling a coin, just as an LLM is never just modeling a word. You are also modeling an environment, and that…

Post by dmix » Sat, Sep 14, 2024, 7:40 AM UTC

paxys wrote: post #247

OpenAI - "Accuracy is a huge problem with LLMs, so we gave ChatGPT an internal thought process so it can reason better and catch mistakes." You - "Amazing, so we can check this log and catch mistakes in its responses." OpenAI - "Lol no, and we'll ban you if you try."

Post by dmix » Sat, Sep 14, 2024, 7:46 AM UTC

dtgm92 wrote: post #249

I abuse chatgpt for generating erotic content, I've been doing so since day 1 of public access. I've paid for dozens of accounts in the past before they removed phone verification in account creation... At any point now I have 4 accounts signed into 2 browsers public/private windows, so I can juggle the rate limit. I receive messages and warnings and do on by email every day... I have never seen that warning message,…

Post by RivieraKid » Sat, Sep 14, 2024, 8:16 AM UTC

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #229

RivieraKid wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of people who use their products care? 1%? OpenAI is a brand, not a literal description of the company!

> OpenAI is a brand, not a literal description of the company! If the brand name is deeply contradictory to the business practices of the company, people will start making nasty puns and jokes, which can lead to serious reputation damages for the respective company.