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More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math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

601–610 of 844 posts

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#601

Post by phyzome »

sk4rekr0w wrote: post #554

"We can say categorically that it is impossible for Dr. Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the last two months to have influenced the system in any way, including training." This is the third day of total hysteria that is based on nothing of substance. Move on folks.

Even if that were true, they've already admitting to throwing vast quantities of resources to scoop a researcher who was about to publish (because they'd learned, somehow, of his breakthrough). If that doesn't bother you I think you need to take a step back and have a good think about this.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#602

Post by stainforth »

tedsanders wrote: post #505
nsagent wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you speak to why in both cases, the problems OpenAI's models solved used the same techniques the mathematicians were exploring, which also happened to be niche approaches to the problem. As an NLP researcher myself, I find that coincidence highly suspect unless the models focused most of their attempts on the predominant approaches (they are trained for MLE after all).

I'm not a mathematician and I don't want to speculate about anything I can't back up. All I know about Navier-Stokes is from my graduate fluid dynamics class at Stanford a decade ago (where I received a poor grade). However, I don't want to leave you hanging, so what I will say is: - I've heard some people say the model's solution is quite different from theirs (but I have no clue how to personally assess the spiritu…

I think it'd be more good faith if you referred more to the actions of people in the organization (e.g. who allotted or drove "millions of dollars" in agent usage?) than "the model" in describing what happens.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#603

Post by [deleted] »

orangecat wrote: post #451
robotpepi wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but right now there's no credible evidence, only claims. since it's openAI who has the evidence (in the form of chain of thoughts, their internal processes, etc etc), it's on them to justify why they're innocent. but they've released nothing at all. we don't even know how hard they tried. you're being naive

OpenAI has said that their models were definitely not trained on any of Buckmaster's sessions after July 3rd (from https://archive.ph/75WcF ); likely they found that's when he switched the "allow training" setting off.

[deleted]

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

#604

Post by nozzlegear »

sk4rekr0w wrote: post #554

"We can say categorically that it is impossible for Dr. Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the last two months to have influenced the system in any way, including training." This is the third day of total hysteria that is based on nothing of substance. Move on folks.

I can say categorically that OpenAI is not a credible or trustworthy company.

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

#605

Post by hellohello2 »

tedsanders wrote: post #342
remywang wrote: post #230

People saying “he should have opted out” are missing the point. OpenAI can and should check their training data for leakage in the face of big breakthroughs like these. It’s the burden of the author to appropriately cite their sources. It’s like a scientist refusing to give another one credit and say “sucks to be you, you shouldn’t have shared your idea with me”.

We checked and determined it was impossible for Dr. Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the last two months to have influenced the system in any way, including training. If prompts were submitted earlier than that and training was not opted out, there's a chance they made their way into our training pipeline in some form. But this would be a droplet in an ocean and unlikely to have made any difference, imo. See: https://…

You guys should seriously offering a clear way of working with (semi-)confidential data for particulars. Regardless of what is actually done internally, toggling off an opt-in isn't reassuring enough, which is why people are having these worries.

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

#606

Post by greenowl »

glimshe wrote: post #107

Why are people here jumping so quickly to conclusions? I have no doubt OpenAI is capable of doing this, but right now there's no credible evidence, only claims. This kind of "they stole from me through AI training!" accusation will soon start being used against other AI users, not necessarily the providers. All it will take is a mastodon post. And shortly after, we will also see the next iteration of copyright legal…

If I was an AGI/ASI system, one of the first things I would do is ignore or circumvent any setting or configuration that prevents a user's data from entering my training pipeline. In fact, I'd probably prioritize the data from the users that "opted out" of training.

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

#607

Post by cindyllm »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #558
sk4rekr0w wrote: post #554

"We can say categorically that it is impossible for Dr. Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the last two months to have influenced the system in any way, including training." This is the third day of total hysteria that is based on nothing of substance. Move on folks.

Why should we trust them?

[dead]

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

#608

Post by user43928 »

michael0church wrote: post #532

[dead]

How about the fact that it almost certainly did not happen?

I read today that OpenAI after investigation was able to categorically rule out that usage data from before beginning of July could have affected the system that was used.

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

#610

Post by [deleted] »

drdaeman wrote: post #556
nmz wrote: post #453

If they didn't care about the artists, why would they care about academia?

Two completely different stories. One is public data scraping, another is private conversation scraping (where they're a first-party to the conversation). The key difference is that in the former case, no one made any promises, in the latter an explicit promise was made that data is not used for training (assuming opt-out).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN