591–600 of 862 posts
I'm not one to comment often but this really pisses me off. OpenAI looked at user data, stole world class researchers' work, and then tried to threaten those researchers to do what would make their corporation profit (which they would anyways!). Imagine you have been working on a terribly difficult math problem for a decade. This is a result you have spent years on, and what you will likely be remembered for. And to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a horrible response from Bubeck. How did he think that would make him and OpenAI look good to tweet that?
Did we read the same tweet? It felt very forthright and level-headed to me. Not at all what I expected.
Pretty insane if he couldn't figure out why there would be bickering in this scenario...
The accused Sebastian Bubeck has denied the allegations on Twitter[0], and various other OpenAI employees[1,2] seem to be mocking another Anthropic employee voicing support for Levent[3]? Things are getting messy. [0] https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20972141224714323... [1] https://xcancel.com/polynoamial/status/2097215233119211902 [2] https://xcancel.com/danintheory/status/2097214838003138603 [3] https://…
Wow this is just bullying, it's insane that we are letting these people be in charge of the transition
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frankly, I don't buy this difficulty argument. They know which model was used to come up with that particular idea. A text search over the corpus of user data used in the training set can only take so long.
I think you may be underestimating how difficult a text search over their data is. They may have to build new mechanisms to do this. And what you really want is also an attribution of how much of a contribution a given corpus made which is a much harder question to answer; a single appearance of a chat probably has very little impact on the inference performance at this time unless it’s been explicitly preferenced so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be very difficult to say. It confirms that Tristan's data is likely part of the data the models use, but a lot of filtering, pruning, and transform goes into training. Data has to be determined to be signal and not just noice, then it could go through processes of generating questions/answers from that data, then it RLHF's over this. OpenAI have petabytes of data, all anonymized. It could take months to say…
Frankly, I don't buy this difficulty argument. They know which model was used to come up with that particular idea. A text search over the corpus of user data used in the training set can only take so long.
And the difficulty is harder than just the extreme scale of text searching. but also explodes with organizational difficulty since there are so many people tweaking/shifting data independently upstream of the actual training run, and no they will not all add the telemetry you wish they did.
In the ideal, should it be this hard? Well, no, but that's org wrangling for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just a nonsense line of reasoning. Training based on the solution to the problem (or the key insight behind the problem) is clearly a form of plagiarism.
What about my line of reasoning is nonsense? I made no claim either in support of or contrary to yours. Rather I pointed out that by this logic literally everything that an LLM spits out is plagiarism of the vast majority of the entire body of human literature in existence. Can you offer meaningful refutation of that observation of mine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly this whole thing is so fucking weird. I feel like there's an argument that absolutely no one involved in the final crossing of the finish line to the proof actually did any work (other than just intelligently directing an LLM) and deserves any credit. As the author of this doc mentions, the mathematicians who did the actual work that led to the formulation of this approach (without the use of LLMs; just good…
Sounds like the plot for Good Will Hunting 2.
It’ll have to be Good Will Hunting 3.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"using the same approach that Buckmaster and Alpoge had been exploring" is imo mealy wording: it seems fairly likely that OA heard Buckmaster and Alpoge were close to a breakthrough, and decided to use their unlimited compute to quickly prompt based on their assumptions about B&As work.
Is that necessarily wrong, so long as the original innovators get a citation credit?
Big universities like Standford should be building their own AI datacenters. It's the only way to keep your research private.
LOL, have you worked for a big university? They are massively unsuited for building and running datacenters (especially warehouse-scale ones). Further, building an AI datacenter in California is daft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems exceptionally unlikely to me that OpenAI would be "reading user prompts". More likely is a leak somewhere else. Obviously Anthropic/OpenAI are engaged in espionage stuff with each other. I am guessing Levent just mentioned something to someone at Anthropic and it got out.
why is this downvoted? do people really think OpenAI is snooping at people specifically? like they are looking for good leads into new problems or ideas and they found this guy's codex thread and used it? come on man, even for conspiracy theories this is stupid.
I'd be shocked if they weren't