81–90 of 212 posts
OpenAI played themselves here. Now nobody is going to take any of their results on this benchmark seriously, ever again. That o3 result has just disappeared in a poof of smoke. If they had blinded themselves properly then that wouldn't be the case. Whereas other AI companies now have the opportunity to be first to get a significant result on FrontierMath.
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 messing with benchmarks”.
In fact, even if they did fully lie and game the benchmark - do you even care? As an OpenAI customer, all I care about is that the product works.
I code with o1 for hours every day, so I am very excited for o3 to be released via API. And if they trained on private datasets, I honestly don’t care. I just want to get a better coding partner until I’m irrelevant.
Final thought - why are these contractors owed a right to know where funding came from? I would definitely be proud to know I contributed to the advancement of the field of AI if I was included in this group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can somehow explain to me how they can simply not respect copyright and get away with it? Also is this a uniquely open-ai problem, or also true of the other llm makers?
A lot of people want AI training to be in breach of copyright somehow, to the point of ignoring the likely outcomes if that were made law. Copyright law is their big cudgel for removing the thing they hate. However, while it isn't fully settled yet, at the moment it does not appear to be the case.
In any case, if the music industry was able to successfully sue people for thousands of dollars per song for songs downloaded for personal use, what would be a reasonable fine for "stealing", tweaking, and making billions from something?
HN loves to speculate that OpenAI is some big scam whose seeming ascendance is based on deceptive marketing hype, but o1, to anyone who has tried it seriously is undoubtedly very much within the ballpark of what OpenAI claims it is able to do. If everything they are doing really is just overfitting and gaming the tests, that discrepancy will eventually catch up to them, and people will stop using the APIs and chatgpt
OpenAI played themselves here. Now nobody is going to take any of their results on this benchmark seriously, ever again. That o3 result has just disappeared in a poof of smoke. If they had blinded themselves properly then that wouldn't be the case. Whereas other AI companies now have the opportunity to be first to get a significant result on FrontierMath.
[1]: https://epoch.ai/math-problems/submit-problem - the benchmark is comprised of "hundreds" of questions, so at the absolute lowest it cost 300 * 200 = 60,000 dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simply put, if the model isn’t producing an actual copy, they aren’t violating copyright (in the US) under any current definition. As much as people bandy the term around, copyright has never applied to input, and the output of a tool is the responsibility of the end user. If I use a copy machine to reproduce your copyrighted work, I am responsible for that infringement not Xerox. If I coax your copyrighted work out…
> As much as people bandy the term around, copyright has never applied to input, and the output of a tool is the responsibility of the end user. Where this breaks down though is that contributory infringement is a still a thing if you offer a service aids in copyright infringement and you don't do "enough" to stop it. Ie, it would all be on the end user for folks that self host or rent hardware and run an LLM or Gen…
There are cases where infringement by negligence that could be argued, but as long as there is clear effort to prevent copying in the output of the tool, then there is no tort.
If the models are creating copies inadvertently and separately from the efforts of the end users deliberate efforts then yes, the creators of the tool would likely be the responsible party for infringement.
If I ask an LLM for a story about vampires and the model spits out The Twilight Saga, that would be problematic. Nor should the model reproduce the story word for word on demand by the end user. But it seems like neither of these examples are likely outcomes with current models.
There are ways that you could game the benchmark without adding it to the training set. By repetitively evaluating on the dataset itself it will regress into a validation set, not a test set, even in black box setting, as you can simply evaluating 100 checkpoints and pick the one that performs the best, rinse and repeat
I still believe o3 is the real deal, BUT this gimmick kind sour my appetite a bit, for that those who run the company
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simply put, if the model isn’t producing an actual copy, they aren’t violating copyright (in the US) under any current definition. As much as people bandy the term around, copyright has never applied to input, and the output of a tool is the responsibility of the end user. If I use a copy machine to reproduce your copyrighted work, I am responsible for that infringement not Xerox. If I coax your copyrighted work out…
> 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…
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.
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…
I was blown away by chatgpt release and generally have admired OpenAI however I wouldn't put it past them
At this point their entire marketing strategy seems to be to do vague posting on X/Twitter and keep hyping the models so that investors always feel there is something around the corner
And I don't think they need to do that. Most investors will be throwing money at them either way but maybe when you are looking to raise _billions_ that's not enough
“… 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…
This has me curious about ARC-AGI. Would it have been possible for OpenAI to have gamed ARC-AGI by seeing the first few examples and then quickly mechanical turking a training set, fine tuning their model, then proceeding with the rest of the evaluation? Are there other tricks they could have pulled? It feels like unless a model is being deployed to an impartial evaluator's completely air gapped machine, there's a to…