[flagged]
Why would random snapshots of audio from a watch be useful AI training data?
For the base model?
More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
231–240 of 845 posts
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#232I 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.
> We take steps to protect your privacy
No mention what those “steps” are, success criteria, or whether they are successful by any navies at all … they take steps though… so it’s fine, and if we know one thing it’s that we can really truly trust someone off the likes of Sam Altman.
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#233So 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
There's also the fact that the setting has been getting turned on by some users: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49643556
[deleted]
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
In all fairness this is someone saying something. Misremembering happens. Unless we have something with a bit more evidence, the simpler explanation suffices.
In more accurate assessment rather than assuming no maliciousness nor incompetence, remembering also happens. Unless we fail as a society, the simpler explanation that "OpenAI is training on all data it can and resetting config toggles because it uses the same cohort of engineers that came from Meta and other FANGAMAAMMAM clones" suffices.
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I wouldn’t assume it was lying. To me, dark patterns (like manipulative wording) imply that: 1) someone in a governing body, or someone in the organization, e.g a designer, ethicist, lawyer, developer, etc. has successfully argued that users should be able to avoid something that they determine is not in their best interest. And also: 2) someone in the c-suite or marketing has decided to mitigate that thr…
> To me, dark patterns (like manipulative wording) imply that: Intellectualizing this and endless quibbling isn't actually smart, and this is pretty simple. OpenAI isn't open. Whatever starts with lies usually continues with lies and ends with lies.
Just found out Google didn’t index a googol pages. Lying to me about everything this whole damn time smh
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#236So 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
Literally every famous open math problem has had >1 mathematicians ask ChatGPT to solve it. Probably greater than >1000 if you count randos. There is no math problem that OpenAI/Anthropic can solve that didn’t have users already try it in Chat/Claude.
I'm the random that says "solve Riemann make no mistakes" With Fable 5.*
It's fun! I sometimes have tokens to burn and it's instructive despite knowing nothing about the problem other than a NumberPhile video
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you talking about?
I think they are referring to the Apple Watch 12 & 4 ultra feature announced yesterday. But I will note they are not on by default and has several configuration options.
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s Wikipedia I copy pasted but sure, you do you. And yes - without Grossmann, Einstein likely would never have posited relativity. Grossmann literally prompted him, saying “look at this, read that, learn this, then try this approach”. Without riemann’s metric tensor, not a fucking chance. And for what it’s worth my PhD is in physics. You?
So you're just equivocating on terms like "prompt", "synthesis" and the like. Clearly a PhD in physics does not free people from scientistic modes of thinking and poor philosophy. To think this discussion is about Einstein who had a much better mind on these things as well.
They used words to mean what the words mean. What specific issue do you take with that?
"prompt", as in prompting an AI, has the same definition as "prompt", as in prompting a person. They mean the same thing, that's why the term was applied to AI after already applying people.
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#239The author of the original mastodon post, Andreas Thom, acknowledged that he had not opted his data out of being used for training until June 29 of this year. He spends most of the post lashing out at OpenAI for not being transparent about whether his data was trained on (when the answer is obviously yes). People need to understand how all these AI company policies around training data work before working with them,…
This is absolutely not "common sense opsec". If I type information about some proof I'm exploring into a Google Doc, I do not worry even a tiny bit that the Docs team might forward it to a team of advanced mathematicians in case they have an advanced technique they want to show off by scooping me. That would be a crazy thing to do, nobody would even consider it, and if it happened Sundar would fire everyone involved.…
That’s … Googles entire reason for making these “you don’t pay with money” tools. Did you not understand that?
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#240But who are you going to believe? Multiple independent academic researchers or the CEO who was fired two years ago for gross dishonesty?
More like, "Who are you going to believe: a multi billionaire, or people competing for a million dollar math prize?"