141–150 of 846 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is also trained on your HN posts. And lots of other things you post on the internet.
Public posts on the internet are acceptable (to me). For my (private) prompts, I need a warning telling me they may be used for training.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think so too. The value is in the entire conversation. IMO, "domain experts" don't run LLMs blindly and hands free. This does not work for top level work (e.g., mathematical proofs, coding anything more complex than yet another slop game or website). Experts have long sessions where they prompt and guide LLM in response to what it produces. This is the discovery process. And frontier labs definitely train on that.…
Last year we were saying there must be a human-in-the-loop (HitL), but anyone who is the HitL exhibits the “HitL skill” to the agent. There might be no books about human intuition but we teach it to LLMs by interacting with them
I don’t know why but it just ‘sounds right’. It’s the best analogy I can think of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they could be significantly piggybacking on human progress, This is AI in a nutshell, its a plagiarism machine. An abstraction layer between vast amounts of stolen human-generated data that filters out the liabilities and accountability for that original theft. Its an IP laundering system.
That’s one perspective. I just view it as a thing that can brute force and produce outputs - that it has no way of ‘knowing’ - but doesn’t need to since it’s just running off of probability. No human can compete in that contest. But no llm can compete in the contest of ‘understanding’ and application in the real world - which is where 99% of the value is. I’m very pro AI long term btw but I’m not blinded.
It is suspicious that OpenAI decided to generate 300 billion output tokens from a model still in training, right after learning there was a credible chance that a major math proof was in that model’s training data. Obviously there are reasonably plausible explanations for each step, but it does sort of feel like parallel construction.
I think people are focusing on the training data issue too much. If the data was contaminated, I can still blame that on negligence. But, at least with the Navier-Stokes solution, it's clear [^1] that they learned that Alpöge and Buckmaster were getting close to a solution and learned of the general approach they were taking. Only after learning the secret to cracking the problem did they send the first prompt. What…
So such thing existed. In fact, what they learnt was some progress existed, not what the specific progress was.
It is suspicious that OpenAI decided to generate 300 billion output tokens from a model still in training, right after learning there was a credible chance that a major math proof was in that model’s training data. Obviously there are reasonably plausible explanations for each step, but it does sort of feel like parallel construction.
I think people are focusing on the training data issue too much. If the data was contaminated, I can still blame that on negligence. But, at least with the Navier-Stokes solution, it's clear [^1] that they learned that Alpöge and Buckmaster were getting close to a solution and learned of the general approach they were taking. Only after learning the secret to cracking the problem did they send the first prompt. What…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good question, this was very well known. Do you have an answer?
There is no fine-print (let alone a loud banner) on the chat thread page that tells me my prompts can be used for training.
The fundamental rule in this case is that if we offload our data to a cloud provider we can assume they read it, if they can, unless they promised very clearly they will not.
Are we back to the era where people blindly trust product TOS instead of actual cryptography, have we forgotten already the thousand of fines Google, Microsoft, Apple and practically all top companies got for breaching their own ToS and the law?
Common, on HN at least I would have thought that everyone assume that anything arriving on a server in PLAINTEXT is recorded (thus used later)?
Let's not forget that at any moment, OpenAI/Anthropic/Google... could be providing stronger privacy guarantees by having proper attestation with e2e, they have the budget, solid engineers, why isn't it done? Answer is pretty simple imo.