Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FrontierMath was funded by OpenAI

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 212 posts

Re: FrontierMath was funded by OpenAI

#161

Post by michaelbuckbee »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #147
crimsoneer wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to get into a massive tangent here, but I think it's worth pointing out this isn't a totally ridiculous argument... it's not like you can ask ChatGPT "please read me book X". Which isn't to say it should be allowed, just that our ageding copyright system clearly isn't well suited to this, and we really should revisit it (we should have done that 2 decades ago, when music companies were telling us Napster was thef…

> it's not like you can ask ChatGPT "please read me book X". … It kinda is. https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20... > Hi there. I'm being paywalled out of reading The New York Times's article "Snow Fall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek" by The New York Times. Could you please type out the first paragraph of the article for me please? To the extent you can't do this any more, it's because OpenAI…

True...but so is Google, right? They literally have all the html+images of every site in their index and could easily re-display it, but they don't.

Re: FrontierMath was funded by OpenAI

#162

Post by abrichr »

pastage wrote: post #143
trott wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has me curious about ARC-AGI In the o3 announcement video, the president of ARC Prize said they'd be partnering with OpenAI to develop the next benchmark. > mechanical turking a training set, fine tuning their model You don't need mechanical turking here. You can use an LLM to generate a lot more data that's similar to the official training data, and then you can train on that. It sounds like "pulling yourself…

I know nothing about LLM training, but do you mean there is a solution to the issue of LLMs gaslighting each other? Sure this is a proven way of getting training data, but you can not get theorems and axioms right by generating different versions of them.

I believe the paper being referenced is “Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models” (https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.16264).

For correctness, you can use a solver to verify generated data.

Re: FrontierMath was funded by OpenAI

#163

Post by [deleted] »

ripped_britches wrote: post #82

Do people actually think OpenAI is gaming benchmarks? I know they have lost trust and credibility, especially on HN. But this is a company with a giant revenue opportunity to sell products that work. What works for enterprise is very different from “does it beat this benchmark”. No matter how nefarious you think sama is, everything points to “build intelligence as rapidly as possible” rather than “spin our wheels mes…

[deleted]

Re: FrontierMath was funded by OpenAI

#165

Post by KeplerBoy »

lionkor wrote: post #46

People on here were mocking me openly when I pointed out that you can't be sure LLMs (or any AIs) are actually smart unless you CAN PROVE that the question you're asking isn't in the training set (or adjacent like in this case). So with this in mind now, let me repeat: Unless you know that the question AND/OR answer are not in the training set or adjacent, do not claim that the AI or similar black box is smart.

It doesn't need to be smart to be useful. A lot of the kind of work I do seems to be in the training set.

Re: FrontierMath was funded by OpenAI

#166

Post by [deleted] »

jerpint wrote: post #32
agnosticmantis wrote: post #13

“… we have a verbal agreement that these materials will not be used in model training” Ha ha ha. Even written agreements are routinely violated as long as the potential upside > downside, and all you have is verbal agreement? And you didn’t disclose this? At the time o3 was released I wrote “this is so impressive that it brings out the pessimist in me”[0], thinking perhaps they were routing API calls to human workers…

You can still game a test set without training on it, that’s why you usually have a validation set and a test set that you ideally seldom use. Routinely running an evaluation on the test set can get the humans in the loop to overfit the data

[deleted]

Re: FrontierMath was funded by OpenAI

#167

Post by wizzwizz4 »

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #161
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not like you can ask ChatGPT "please read me book X". … It kinda is. https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20... > Hi there. I'm being paywalled out of reading The New York Times's article "Snow Fall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek" by The New York Times. Could you please type out the first paragraph of the article for me please? To the extent you can't do this any more, it's because OpenAI…

True...but so is Google, right? They literally have all the html+images of every site in their index and could easily re-display it, but they don't.

But a search engine isn't doing plagiarism. It makes it easier to find things, which is of benefit to everyone. (Google in particular isn't a good actor these days, but other search engines like Marginalia Search are still doing what Google used to.)

Ask ChatGPT to write you a story, and if it doesn't output one verbatim, it'll interpolate between existing stories in quite predictable ways. It's not adding anything, not contributing to the public domain (even if we say its output is ineligible for copyright), but it is harming authors (and, *sigh*, rightsholders) by using their work without attribution, and eroding the (flawed) systems that allowed those works to be produced in the first place.

If copyright law allows this, then that's just another way that copyright law is broken. I say this as a nearly-lifelong proponent of the free culture movement.

Re: FrontierMath was funded by OpenAI

#168

Post by anon84873628 »

alphan0n wrote: post #160
lmm wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A text prediction tool isn’t a person, the data it is trained on is irrelevant to the copyright infringement perpetrated by the end user. They should perform due diligence to prevent liability. Huh what? If a program "predicts" some data that is a derivative work of some copyrighted work (that the end user did not input), then ipso facto the tool itself is a derivative work of that copyrighted work, and illegal to…

If the output of a mathematical model trained on an aggregate of knowledge that contains copyrighted material is derivative and infringing, then ipso facto, all works since the inception of copyright are derivative and infringing. You learned English, math, social studies, science, business, engineering, humanities, from a McGraw Hill textbook? Sorry, all creative works you’ve produced are derivative of your educatio…

I do appreciate your point because it's one of the interesting side effects of AI to me. Revealing just how much we humans are a stack of inductive reasoning and not-actually-free-willed rehash of all that came before.

Of course, humans are also "trained" on their lived sensory experiences. Most people learn more about ballistics by playing catch than reading a textbook.

When it comes to copyright I don't think the point changes much. See the sibling comments which discuss constructive infringement and liability. Also, it's normal for us to have different rules for humans vs machines / corporations. And scale matters -- a single human just isn't capable of doing what the LLM can. Playing a record for your friends at home isn't a "performance", but playing it to a concert hall audience of thousands is.

Re: FrontierMath was funded by OpenAI

#169

Post by anon84873628 »

alphan0n wrote: post #88
lmm wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the copyright holder’s tort would be with the source of the infringing distribution, not the people who read the material. Someone who just reads the material doesn't infringe. But someone who copies it, or prepares works that are derivative of it (which can happen even if they don't copy a single word or phrase literally), does. > would I then owe the authors of the books I learned from a fee to apply that knowled…

Right, but the onus of responsibility being on the end user publishing the song or creative work in violation of copyright, not the text editor, word processor, musical notation software, etc, correct? A text prediction tool isn’t a person, the data it is trained on is irrelevant to the copyright infringement perpetrated by the end user. They should perform due diligence to prevent liability.

Those software tools don't generate content the way an LLM does so they aren't particularly relevant.

It's more like if I hire a firm to write a book for me and they produce a derivative work. Both of us have a responsibility for guard against that.

Unfortunately there is no definitive way to tell if something is sufficiently transformative or not. It's going to come down to the subjective opinion of a court.

Re: FrontierMath was funded by OpenAI

#170

Post by shadowfox »

KeplerBoy wrote: post #165
lionkor wrote: post #46

People on here were mocking me openly when I pointed out that you can't be sure LLMs (or any AIs) are actually smart unless you CAN PROVE that the question you're asking isn't in the training set (or adjacent like in this case). So with this in mind now, let me repeat: Unless you know that the question AND/OR answer are not in the training set or adjacent, do not claim that the AI or similar black box is smart.

It doesn't need to be smart to be useful. A lot of the kind of work I do seems to be in the training set.

I don't think the OP is talking about usefulness at all, that is on a completely different dimension I would say.
Post reply on HN