801–810 of 862 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't seen any proof that OpenAI asked Tristan to remove Sebastian from the prize. Until we have proof of this, it would be wise to offer conclusions. Same for NS validity. This was not validated by the community yet.
you can read it in buckmaster's document.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree, I think the practice is also very clear from the overall strategy of AI-companies and their ToS: Scale with subsidized pricing as fast as possible to gain more user-data for training --> Own the better model --> scale pricing. Scanning social media (e.g. Twitter, Reddit) posts only give a glimpse into the thought-process, chat logs on-scale give you the actual process in machine-readable format. There's a reas…
> - Tristan is suspicious of the timing, as only few others were trying this approach. OpenAI says the model didn't access his user data directly, but leaves unanswered whether Tristan's chat conversations were part of the training. The question, for AI customers, is when they build products using services of AI-companies, would AI-companies engage in theft of customer data for use in training?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many do indeed hold the position that all LLM output is uncopyrightable plagiarism. They're probably right, but there's an even stronger argument here: Science papers of a phd level must contain: 1. one or more novel insights 2. a long list of citations to contextualize them and 3. some work to prove that the insights are in fact meaningful --- In this context, consider a prompt based diffusion model which, when aske…
I neither agree nor disagree that all LLM outputs are plagiarism. I merely objected that the line of argument engaged in was specious given the context. As to your stronger argument. You only cite prior novel insights that you're actively building off of and that (approximately speaking) fall outside of the status quo. You don't for example cite leibniz or newton despite your paper making heavy use of calculus. So is…
The second point: if you say you can’t prove that OpenAI actually used it, it doesn’t mean that OpenAI did not use it. It’s hacker news not lawyers news here lol. And OpenAI can’t prove that they didn’t use it either. The whole point is that Levent felt he had reasonable suspicion to believe the AI did use the result, because he felt like without his input on an unpublished paper it was unlikely for AI to reach the same result. I haven’t read the paper so I don’t know where I stand on that.
On the last point, about your “for the greater good” argument. It’s higher maths lol. I don’t know about this field but I doubt it’ll be very useful for society. Maybe it’ll make one part 2x faster which makes some rocket cheaper to launch. Does the average person care? Debatable. I think it’s reasonable to hold published papers in proof based fields to a higher standard. Otherwise the current & future problems of ML engineer fields just expand to other fields. No thanks.
Finally, if you anonpost to the autistic Internet forum that everyone else is “brain dead screeching”, it really just says something about yourself lol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what reason do we have to believe that they did this? both things were proved by AI, isn't it logical that they could have very similar approaches? it is common that multiple people essentially simultaneously prove/invent the same thing I see zero evidence of wrongdoing
This depends on what "proved by AI" meant. Was that a one shot prompt? or something guided by human, step by step? If that's the later, it won't use the same approach when not guided by the same human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI says > While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models That basically means, we don’t know, and we hope the model didn’t look up user conversations, and the best thing we can do is hope. That’s seriously disgusting. I can understand why on a technical level why perhaps it is impossible to answer what exactly the model had access to,…
How could they possibly know? If Tristan posted on r/math and they slurped that up as training data, that would count, no? They might never even know. I can’t envision any absolute statement by them claiming that they didn’t use his work that survives legal rigor. That is, this statement was never not going to be in this post in any of the infinite multiverses.
This is more of an expectation of privacy issue. If you write on an envelope and USPS has a copy, you have no reason to be mad; if you write on a letter inside the envelope and USPS still has a copy, you could rightfully be mad and say this is disgusting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it seems like OAI tried to share, but didn't want to share with an Ant employee. a bit childish, but understandable to want to avoid a headline "Anthropic researcher solves Millennium problem" it seems like Buckmaster got one-upped and is upset. understandable, but I find their reaction childish as well
> OAI tried to share, but didn't want to share with an Ant employee Why does OpenAI get to dictate who Buckmaster can claim co-authorship with? > I find their reaction childish OpenAI may have, with full plausible deniability, taken Buckmaster’s work and passed it off—in substantial part—as their own. (Fitting into a fact pattern of them having tried to do the same with Apple.) There is a material takeaway for anyone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does opting out matter? "Do we use user feedback and de-identified data to improve ChatGPT and Codex in a holistic way? Yes. And so does every LLM company." - Mark Chen, Chief Research Officer, OpenAI. https://x.com/markchen90/status/2097400166554993041
My understanding is that even if you opt out but then press thumbs down or give other feedback you are implicitly or explicitly or whatever giving permission to them to look at that chat alone.
I have opted out from data sharing, and when Claude asks me for feedback on a session it then asks if its OK to share that data with Anthropic.
I'd assume an opt out is an effective opt out. An opt out that is ignored by Anthropic is a breach of contract, not something they would do casually, esp. given the high turnaround and animosities between their own employees and ex-employees - and the labs. All it takes is one pissed off whistleblower to open a can of worms.
Occam's razor applies. The mathematician did not opt out from data sharing. OpenAI vacuums up all such data into training data sets. If OpenAI genuine does not easily know if a given session went into the actual training data set its probably due to the complexity of the data pipelines - not everything ends up impacting the model weights, after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is fair to expect the companies to stick by their demarcation API / enterprise subs tier is default opt out of training. Personal subsidized tier is default opt in with the option to to opt out. I don't see a grand conspiracy beyond this.
The Chief Research Office at Open AI just put out this tweet- https://x.com/markchen90/status/2097400166554993041?s=20 Seems it doesn't matter if you opt out or in.. your data will be used for training
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> OAI tried to share, but didn't want to share with an Ant employee Why does OpenAI get to dictate who Buckmaster can claim co-authorship with? > I find their reaction childish OpenAI may have, with full plausible deniability, taken Buckmaster’s work and passed it off—in substantial part—as their own. (Fitting into a fact pattern of them having tried to do the same with Apple.) There is a material takeaway for anyone…
OAI didn't try to claim Buckmaster's work as their own. OAI tried to let Buckmaster present OAI's work. it is nearly the opposite of your accusation
https://www.reddit.com/r/mathematics/comments/1wauync/commen...
It doesn't seem like there's anyone at OAI who knows much about the problem they are solving. Seems like CS theorists or algebraists* trying to own the pros by driving a car that's beyond their skill level. For one, they didn't cite the guys that B&A based their work on.
*It would be most fair to say there are no analysts on board, nor are they likely hire any soon; those are the least impressionable people in math. Applied math PDE elves who hadn't already left on the world-model boats would have jumped off around the time that eg Ilya did because they wouldnt have been able to stand the three Bs pretending to be experts in fields they imagine to be "adjacent".. like Public Relations
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both Sam Altman and Sebastien Bubeck admitted they only want Buckmaster to be the lead author on a rewrite of the OpenAI proof. https://x.com/sama/status/2097385167002415140 https://x.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097379411691516310 A wake up call for using OpenAI models. If you discover something with their model and you work for a competitor, they “felt it would be inappropriate” for you “to author OpenAI’s work”.
I work in catastrophe risk modeling and it's a multi billion dollar industry. We often chat where the business might be heading in future. An uncomfortable scenario is what if a frontier tech company decides to offer our customers the same products that we do. There's a lot of pressure on AI adoption so the company has partnered with various tech companies to build intelligent systems on top of proprietary data and m…
Any enterprise worth their salt already considers this stuff.