5 ms·

Interesting how everyone says „But I can google you“ instead of thinking about the issue. Companies are building and selling GPT-3 with 6 billion parameters an

Interesting how everyone says „But I can google you“ instead of thinking about the issue. Companies are building and selling GPT-3 with 6 billion parameters and one of those „parameters“ seems to be OP‘s username and his „strange“ two word last name. If models grow bigger, they will potentially contain personal information about everyone of us. If you can get yourself removed from search indices, shouldn’t there be a way for AI models, too? Another thought: do we need new licenses (GPL, MIT, etc.) which disallow the use for (for-profit) AI training?

ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
The FTC has a method for dealing with this: they have in the past year or two ordered companies with ML models built from the personal information of minors to completely delete their models.
- monetus 4y ago
  I asked this question a few days ago; I just wanted to say thanks for answering. Some companies can find themselves without a business model if they handle that badly.
- dchichkov 4y ago
  I agree. There is no reason ML tech should perform worse than traditional software, allowing privacy as per GDPR and CA regulations, at the very least. The input datasets should be managed as per GDPR/CA regulations, with clear flags protecting privacy of EU citizens and CA residents. And any derived models should propagate these labels and not allow querying information violating these regulations. If GitHub Colab implementation or and GPT-3/4 models were developed without these regulations in mind these models should be retrained. Yes, it is a hard research problem. Yet, there is no reason these models should be allowed to violate privacy in worse ways than traditional software.
jonbwhite 4y ago
Is it really that different than a search engine? Take away the AI specific language and you have two products that when given his username return results with his real name.
- monetus 4y ago
  Another commenter pointed out that a lot of these models aren't publicly accessible, but will still be used to retrieve information about you - by say employers contracting with a ML company
  - lolinder 4y ago
    But they can only be used to retrieve information that is already out there. This is still just using GPT-3 as a search engine, it's just a weird search engine that isn't made to purpose and most of the time produces nice-looking nonsense instead of valid data.
    - EUROCARE 4y ago
      It can also be used to retrieve deleted/delisted information. It's not like an search engine, more like an indexed database.
      - lanterk 4y ago
        That's a different issue. And something that can be easier done by purpose-built non-GPT systems.
        EUROCARE 4y ago
        Nobody said it's easier or more optimal with GPT-3, the problem is that it's possible at all.
- nimih 4y ago
  If that's the case, it means that GPT-3 doesn't just raise ethical questions, but legal ones as well: several jurisdictions around the world currently require that search engines allow for the erasure of private information upon request.
- spyder 4y ago
  With classic search engine indexing you can find and remove exact matches from the index, but with neural networks it's harder to make sure you removed every representation of a specific information from the parameters. For example you remove somehow the exact username-name from the model parameters ( that doesn't seems to hard at first) but then it may still return the information if somebody ask the model differently. So if you try to remove the information from a neural network model then it can still have it in different forms you may not even think of, for example in language models the same thing described with different words. And on the other hand removing one thing may affect the models performance on other unrelated things too.
karussell 4y ago
> Another thought: do we need new licenses (GPL, MIT, etc.) which disallow the use for (for-profit) AI training? I don't think that we need new licenses, but probably open source projects need a better way to enforce them. E.g. Copilot just ignores the licensing issues although I can imagine that there could be a solution with a few different models that return code for different purposes. (Like one model returns everything and the code can be used safely only for learning or hobby projects. Another model returns code for GPL code. And a third model returns code compatible with commercial or permissive open source projects.) Or the model spits out also the licence(s) of the code, but not sure if this is technically possible.
gjvnq 4y ago
> If you can get yourself removed from search indices, shouldn’t there be a way for AI models, too? Absolutely yes!
mr_toad 4y ago
The information is embedded in the weights of various layers in the network. Trying to remove that information by editing weights would be like trying to alter someone’s memory by tinkering with synapses. The only way to be completely sure of removing information would be to re-train the model without that data.

ravel-bar-foo 4y ago

The FTC has a method for dealing with this: they have in the past year or two ordered companies with ML models built from the personal information of minors to completely delete their models.

monetus 4y ago
I asked this question a few days ago; I just wanted to say thanks for answering. Some companies can find themselves without a business model if they handle that badly.
dchichkov 4y ago
I agree. There is no reason ML tech should perform worse than traditional software, allowing privacy as per GDPR and CA regulations, at the very least. The input datasets should be managed as per GDPR/CA regulations, with clear flags protecting privacy of EU citizens and CA residents. And any derived models should propagate these labels and not allow querying information violating these regulations. If GitHub Colab implementation or and GPT-3/4 models were developed without these regulations in mind these models should be retrained. Yes, it is a hard research problem. Yet, there is no reason these models should be allowed to violate privacy in worse ways than traditional software.

jonbwhite 4y ago

Is it really that different than a search engine? Take away the AI specific language and you have two products that when given his username return results with his real name.

monetus 4y ago
Another commenter pointed out that a lot of these models aren't publicly accessible, but will still be used to retrieve information about you - by say employers contracting with a ML company
- lolinder 4y ago
  But they can only be used to retrieve information that is already out there. This is still just using GPT-3 as a search engine, it's just a weird search engine that isn't made to purpose and most of the time produces nice-looking nonsense instead of valid data.
  - EUROCARE 4y ago
    It can also be used to retrieve deleted/delisted information. It's not like an search engine, more like an indexed database.
    - lanterk 4y ago
      That's a different issue. And something that can be easier done by purpose-built non-GPT systems.
      - EUROCARE 4y ago
        Nobody said it's easier or more optimal with GPT-3, the problem is that it's possible at all.
nimih 4y ago
If that's the case, it means that GPT-3 doesn't just raise ethical questions, but legal ones as well: several jurisdictions around the world currently require that search engines allow for the erasure of private information upon request.
spyder 4y ago
With classic search engine indexing you can find and remove exact matches from the index, but with neural networks it's harder to make sure you removed every representation of a specific information from the parameters. For example you remove somehow the exact username-name from the model parameters ( that doesn't seems to hard at first) but then it may still return the information if somebody ask the model differently. So if you try to remove the information from a neural network model then it can still have it in different forms you may not even think of, for example in language models the same thing described with different words. And on the other hand removing one thing may affect the models performance on other unrelated things too.

karussell 4y ago

> Another thought: do we need new licenses (GPL, MIT, etc.) which disallow the use for (for-profit) AI training? I don't think that we need new licenses, but probably open source projects need a better way to enforce them. E.g. Copilot just ignores the licensing issues although I can imagine that there could be a solution with a few different models that return code for different purposes. (Like one model returns everything and the code can be used safely only for learning or hobby projects. Another model returns code for GPL code. And a third model returns code compatible with commercial or permissive open source projects.) Or the model spits out also the licence(s) of the code, but not sure if this is technically possible.

gjvnq 4y ago

> If you can get yourself removed from search indices, shouldn’t there be a way for AI models, too? Absolutely yes!

mr_toad 4y ago

The information is embedded in the weights of various layers in the network. Trying to remove that information by editing weights would be like trying to alter someone’s memory by tinkering with synapses. The only way to be completely sure of removing information would be to re-train the model without that data.