Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

mathstodon.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 849 posts

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#171

Post by fithisux »

jrflo wrote: post #155

I pay for the Pro ChatGPT plan, and if you go to settings > data controls this is the first setting: > Improve the model for everyone > Allow your content to be used to train our models, which makes ChatGPT better for you and everyone who uses it. We take steps to protect your privacy. Learn more. It's on by default. We can debate whether or not it should be opt in or opt out, but no one should be surprised by this.

Ok, you shut it down, or that is what they make you believe. You give the instruction to shut down, you can't know if it has been applied.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#172

Post by asimpleusecase »

ColinWright wrote: post #167
jrflo wrote: post #155

I pay for the Pro ChatGPT plan, and if you go to settings > data controls this is the first setting: > Improve the model for everyone > Allow your content to be used to train our models, which makes ChatGPT better for you and everyone who uses it. We take steps to protect your privacy. Learn more. It's on by default. We can debate whether or not it should be opt in or opt out, but no one should be surprised by this.

I refer you to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49643556 Quoting: > "I've reset this more than once and the last time I made a careful note of when I did it and to my surprise I found it re-enabled when I checked just now."

Old Facebook trick - likely resetting that box each time the app is updated.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#173

Post by quentindanjou »

gentlerain wrote: post #169

So people genuinely believe that toggling that "Improve the model for everyone" button makes their data safe from being used for training? How do people become that trusting? The phrasing itself is guilt tripping

We are asking people to become experts in all domains rather than providing a safe context through regulations and laws. I don't like thinking the issue is people, I am a person myself, and I often do mistakes on things I don't want to be an expert at but I do believe I should be in a safe context and not have to worry about every single thing.

Or at least: tell me I should be careful/worry about those particular things.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#174

Post by bigstrat2003 »

techblueberry wrote: post #147

But who are you going to believe? Multiple independent academic researchers or the CEO who was fired two years ago for gross dishonesty?

If Sam Altman tells you the sky is blue, you should double check. I certainly hope nobody believes him when he claims controversial things from which he stands to benefit.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#175

Post by Ydarbleoj »

spindump8930 wrote: post #161

Reminder that there are degrees of "trained on conversations". From John Schulman: > pretrain on user data, with users' tokens as prediction targets: high regurgitation risk, improper > use user prompts to distill large models into small ones: low regurg. risk, some companies probably do this > use user traces to construct RL tasks: low regurg. risk, because RL has low memorization abilities, but can extract customer…

This is a reminder based on believing what these companies say.

I’ve lived long enough to know what they say and what they do are often quite different; and it is not our job to trust but to verify.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#176

Post by cyanydeez »

quentindanjou wrote: post #173
gentlerain wrote: post #169

So people genuinely believe that toggling that "Improve the model for everyone" button makes their data safe from being used for training? How do people become that trusting? The phrasing itself is guilt tripping

We are asking people to become experts in all domains rather than providing a safe context through regulations and laws. I don't like thinking the issue is people, I am a person myself, and I often do mistakes on things I don't want to be an expert at but I do believe I should be in a safe context and not have to worry about every single thing. Or at least: tell me I should be careful/worry about those particular thi…

The grift economy requires all marks to be responsible for the fraud perpetrated by others.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#177

Post by qg127 »

There are so many naive academics. They still believe an "opt-out" button.

Navier Stokes was solved by an internal model, so good luck proving it wasn't trained on Buckmaster/Lepöge or other chats.

Academics don't get that AI is a dirty tech bro industry that stole IP via torrents and runs after every surveillance contract it can get.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#179

Post by cyanydeez »

jeremyjh wrote: post #170
rfgplk wrote: post #160

Under current understanding of the law, anything produced purely by LLMs (with no substantive human input, which is what OpenAI claimed in their post) is firmly in the public domain. So OpenAI can "claim" anything they want, it doesn't make it reality. In fact if I were the original authors I would just take their 400k lines of lean proof and relicense it under their own names/terms.

Public domain doesn’t mean anyone can assert copyright. It specifically means no one can.

also, none of it means anything without the lawyers to back it up. Just like you can be a pedophile in the highest office of democracy and escape persecution.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#180

Post by speak_plainly »

gentlerain wrote: post #169

So people genuinely believe that toggling that "Improve the model for everyone" button makes their data safe from being used for training? How do people become that trusting? The phrasing itself is guilt tripping

Coincidentally, a tweet from OpenAI's Tibo yesterday:

https://x.com/thsottiaux/status/2097746417012166816

Post reply on HN