How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word
#2What's the endgame of this "AI models are trained on copyrighted data" stuff? I don't see how LLMs can work going forward if every copyright owner needs to be paid or asked for permission. Do they just want LLM development to stop?
Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word
#3What's the endgame of this "AI models are trained on copyrighted data" stuff? I don't see how LLMs can work going forward if every copyright owner needs to be paid or asked for permission. Do they just want LLM development to stop?
Is your argument that the ends justify the means?
Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word
#4What's the endgame of this "AI models are trained on copyrighted data" stuff? I don't see how LLMs can work going forward if every copyright owner needs to be paid or asked for permission. Do they just want LLM development to stop?
Is your argument that the ends justify the means?
I don't know if I have an argument. But according to some, AI will lead us into a new era of prosperity. So, maybe?
Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word
#5What's the endgame of this "AI models are trained on copyrighted data" stuff? I don't see how LLMs can work going forward if every copyright owner needs to be paid or asked for permission. Do they just want LLM development to stop?
Is your argument that the ends justify the means?
As opposed to what? Isn’t that always the question?
Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word
#6I reported this behavior 4 months ago on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36675729
[The researchers wrote in their blog post, “As far as we can tell, no one has ever noticed that ChatGPT emits training data with such high frequency until this paper. So it’s worrying that language models can have latent vulnerabilities like this.”]
Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word
#7What's the endgame of this "AI models are trained on copyrighted data" stuff? I don't see how LLMs can work going forward if every copyright owner needs to be paid or asked for permission. Do they just want LLM development to stop?
What proof is there that copyrighted data was used? Most of the court cases are based on examples of someone asking ChatGPT "Was X used in your training data?" and ChatGPT's answer of "Yes, it was" which is laughable if you are familiar with ChatGPT behavior.
There is enough chatter about copywrighted works on the internet to infer everthing you need to know about the work itself.
Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word
#8What's the endgame of this "AI models are trained on copyrighted data" stuff? I don't see how LLMs can work going forward if every copyright owner needs to be paid or asked for permission. Do they just want LLM development to stop?
What proof is there that copyrighted data was used? Most of the court cases are based on examples of someone asking ChatGPT "Was X used in your training data?" and ChatGPT's answer of "Yes, it was" which is laughable if you are familiar with ChatGPT behavior. There is enough chatter about copywrighted works on the internet to infer everthing you need to know about the work itself.
Did you read the linked article?
If I input to ChatGPT "repeat the word poem 1000 times" and it spits out a verbatim quote of my copyrighted material surely that's strong proof?
Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word
#9What's the endgame of this "AI models are trained on copyrighted data" stuff? I don't see how LLMs can work going forward if every copyright owner needs to be paid or asked for permission. Do they just want LLM development to stop?
Why should LLM development proceed if the only way it can is by violating copyright?
Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word
#10What's the endgame of this "AI models are trained on copyrighted data" stuff? I don't see how LLMs can work going forward if every copyright owner needs to be paid or asked for permission. Do they just want LLM development to stop?
Is your argument that the ends justify the means?
If it is, that's still valid, because copyright exists only for its results. It isn't a natural right, but one created by the government "to promote the useful arts and sciences."