71–80 of 93 posts
Why are people so possessive? Why wouldn't they just release their work for the profit of humanity? I'm genuinely curious.
I have the same question, why OpenAI and Anthropic just don't release everything as open source?
Why is it OK if openAI does it?
Am I missing something obvious? Isn’t this just a simple DB query to see the state history of the “Data Controls” → “Improve model for everyone” toggle in the settings? Just report whether that was ever on and over what time period.
Multiple OpenAI staff have publicly said they cannot do that as accessing specific user settings without their consent (or legal requirement) violates their internal privacy policy. However, the mathematicians could easily declare whether they had the toggle on or off. Yet curiously, they will not say!
We shouldn't forget that the only way this unpublished research is supposedly getting into the training data in the first place is because the researchers making the accusations were conversing with ChatGPT in the process of doing their own research on these problems. But if they are saying this contaminated the model's training data with knowledge of their ideas, who's to say the model they were developing their res…
So it’s Napster for ideas?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only under gross negligence would it be unprovable: Did you use a model whose training set included user data? Did the transcripts of any of the agents include a tool call whose result including user data?
>Did you use a model whose training set included user data? OpenAI, as with all AI companies, openly admits that it trains on user data unless the user opts out. But the mathematicians have not said whether or not they opted out. >Did the transcripts of any of the agents include a tool call whose result including user data? They have already explicitly denied this.
> They have already explicitly denied this.
AFAICT they only denied accessing data through a request targeting a user, not that they accessed (users) data through targeting (an extremely niche) topic, which is the relevant part here.
So, unless I'm mistaken, a "result including user data" is very much still in the air.
Am I missing something obvious? Isn’t this just a simple DB query to see the state history of the “Data Controls” → “Improve model for everyone” toggle in the settings? Just report whether that was ever on and over what time period.
Multiple OpenAI staff have publicly said they cannot do that as accessing specific user settings without their consent (or legal requirement) violates their internal privacy policy. However, the mathematicians could easily declare whether they had the toggle on or off. Yet curiously, they will not say!
2. It's on by default,
3. Somebody says there's a second setting "don't train on my data", which is the real setting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49639743
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Andreas opted out on June 29th[0]. As discussed elsewhere on HN[1] [0] https://mathstodon.xyz/@andreasthom/117240535270608201 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49638353
Then none of his work after June 29 will be included in the training data. What I was referring to is the fact that neither Levent Alpöge nor Tristan Buckmaster will answer this question.
What are you basing this on? The linked threads already acknowledged his opting out, and they don't look as settled as you claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that assumes OpenAI respects that setting. Given some of the company’s ethical challenges to date that’s not something folks are willing to just assume is happening.
If you could prove that, it would be a gargantuan class-action lawsuit. And there would almost certainly be at least one whistleblower.
Andrew Wiles gave 3 lectures, and only at the end of the last one he announced that he solved FLT. Imagine someone from the audience announced in between the second and the third lecture that they proved FLT (using his ideas, obviously). Why is it OK if openAI does it?
OpenAI has a lot of money, a lot of rich investors who want it to go to the moon, and an extensive propaganda operation.