11–20 of 74 posts
This is just getting to be a wedge issue for me: this isn’t ok and it has to stop. It’s weekly if not daily some new godawful thing comes up. I just found about the revoked “GPT Detector” thing, that was a non-ridiculous case that the real safety people have some pull, but they took it down with precision and recall numbers you don’t take it down at. These are the villains in the story, and it’s not, like a credible…
This is just getting to be a wedge issue for me: this isn’t ok and it has to stop. It’s weekly if not daily some new godawful thing comes up. I just found about the revoked “GPT Detector” thing, that was a non-ridiculous case that the real safety people have some pull, but they took it down with precision and recall numbers you don’t take it down at. These are the villains in the story, and it’s not, like a credible…
https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/open_m...
https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/NTIA-RFC-Met...
This is just getting to be a wedge issue for me: this isn’t ok and it has to stop. It’s weekly if not daily some new godawful thing comes up. I just found about the revoked “GPT Detector” thing, that was a non-ridiculous case that the real safety people have some pull, but they took it down with precision and recall numbers you don’t take it down at. These are the villains in the story, and it’s not, like a credible…
I don't understand what you're saying about GPT detectors. Are you angry that people are promoting detectors that don't work, or are you angry that OpenAI used to offer one and no longer do?
It was pulled because while it caught on the order of 25 of pure AI output, it missed the rest. But I’m cool with that number, in a world where so much AI in human writing? That’s a total win on low-effort propaganda. Anyone should be cool with that number.
Unfortunately they had to pull it because something like 9% of human authored text got hit with the AI flag. Again, some people are starting to write like it. It’s gonna happen.
This is from memory, so if I’ve got some that wrong I’ll retract that and leave my other reasons as more than sufficient to indicate serious change.
TLDR: OpenAI says it is a moral and safety imperative to pay OpenAI for all eternity
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand what you're saying about GPT detectors. Are you angry that people are promoting detectors that don't work, or are you angry that OpenAI used to offer one and no longer do?
The latter, in the context of the justification. It was pulled because while it caught on the order of 25 of pure AI output, it missed the rest. But I’m cool with that number, in a world where so much AI in human writing? That’s a total win on low-effort propaganda. Anyone should be cool with that number. Unfortunately they had to pull it because something like 9% of human authored text got hit with the AI flag. Agai…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand what you're saying about GPT detectors. Are you angry that people are promoting detectors that don't work, or are you angry that OpenAI used to offer one and no longer do?
The latter, in the context of the justification. It was pulled because while it caught on the order of 25 of pure AI output, it missed the rest. But I’m cool with that number, in a world where so much AI in human writing? That’s a total win on low-effort propaganda. Anyone should be cool with that number. Unfortunately they had to pull it because something like 9% of human authored text got hit with the AI flag. Agai…
That tool had to be almost perfect, if not actually perfect, to exist. And it decidedly was not. I think the AI safety people are somewhat contemptuous but this is not the tree to be barking up imo.
The only path forward is open model weights, Sam Altman is on the wrong side of history here, and I hope he fails to convince regulators.