101–110 of 527 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They clearly expected the leak, they distributed it very widely to researchers. The important thing is the licence, not the access: you are not allowed to use it for commercial purpose.
How could Meta ever find out your private business is using their model without a whistleblower? It's practically impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am shocked that it speaks the way it does when it was trained on random stuff it doesn’t have rights to. They say they trained it on databases they had bought access to etc. And it seems that way. Because how does ChatGPT: 1. Do what you ask instead of continuing your instructions? 2. Use such nice and helpful language as opposed to just random average of what people say? 3. And most of all — how does it have a str…
It is steered by RLHF to give helpful, nice, structured continuations. it was totally trained on random text they never paid a dime for.
"The training and serving code, along with an online demo, are publicly available for non-commercial use." (from Vicuna's home page.) In what universe is that "open source"?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would assume so. Meta’s ML/AI team is very strong, but they probably don’t have a comparable product offering to ChatGPT ready for public use. So instead, they bought themselves some time by letting the open source community run wild with a lesser model and eat into OpenAI’s moat.
They didn't leak it. Someone else did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's been quite a few different iterations of ChatGPT and bing with different behaviours in this regard: it depends somewhat on the base GPT version, the fine-tuning, and the prompt. Bing very famously at one point was extremely passive aggressive when challenged on basically anything. And while there's nothing intrinsic to the structure and training goals of LLMs which directs them towards more structured reasoni…
> Bing very famously at one point was extremely passive aggressive when challenged on basically anything. It still wasn't an indication of how confident it "felt" with its answers. It was just role-playing a more confident and aggressive chat bot than ChatGPT does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They clearly expected the leak, they distributed it very widely to researchers. The important thing is the licence, not the access: you are not allowed to use it for commercial purpose.
How could Meta ever find out your private business is using their model without a whistleblower? It's practically impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would assume so. Meta’s ML/AI team is very strong, but they probably don’t have a comparable product offering to ChatGPT ready for public use. So instead, they bought themselves some time by letting the open source community run wild with a lesser model and eat into OpenAI’s moat.
They didn't leak it. Someone else did.
In order to preserve plausible deniability, the leak will look genuine in all aspects that are easy to simulate. "Someone else did it" is easy to simulate. A better gauge would be to see if anyone is caught and punished. If so, it was probably a real leak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the copyright office said that ai generated material isn’t copyrighted?
You’re correct. US law states that intellectual property can be copyrighted only if it was the product of human creativity, and the USCO only acknowledges work authored by humans at present. Machines and generative AI algorithms, therefore, cannot be authors, and their outputs are not copyrightable.
How much Theseus do I need to ship before I can copyright it as my own? Is there some threshold for how much of an AI generated work needs to be modified by "human creativity" prior to it being copyrightable?
> OpenAI published a detailed blog post outlining some of the principles used to ensure safety in their models. The post emphasize in areas such as privacy, factual accuracy Am I the only one amused by the phrase “factual accuracy”? How many stories have we read like the one where it tries to ghost light the guy that this year is actually last year. “Oh, your phone must be wrong too, because there is no way I could b…
I hold a more charitable interpretation. We (the public) have found an important bug in the system, ie. GPT can lie (or "hallucinate"), even if you try to convince it not to lie. The bug is definitely lowering the usefulness of their product, as well as the public option about it. But I'll let the programmer who has never coded a bug cast the first stone. I wouldn't be surprised if they're scrambling internally to mi…
Are we really there ?
This makes is sound as if the Stanford and Berkeley teams also benefited from the leak, whereas I doubt they didn't have official access. So Alpaca/Vicuna/Koala projects would have probably happened anyway. The leak helped with popularity and demand and also somewhat positive PR for Meta, which makes me think they do not mind the leak that much.
Meta is not being very selective here. I applied for the download myself and got the links after two days (using a university email address).