18 ms·
Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT
- chatmasta 4y agoPaywalled upstream source: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/alphabets-google-and-deepmind-pause-grudges-join-forces-to-chase-openai https://www.theinformation.com/articles/alphabets-google-and...
- sp332 4y agoGoogle has already denied this. https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/29/23662621/google-bard-chatgpt-sharegpt-training-denies https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/29/23662621/google-bard-chat... (For whatever that's worth.)
- nico 4y agoThe engineer's testimony and the scandal might be enough for OpenAI to try to get an injunction against Google to block their AI development. If that happens, it's game over for Google in the AI race. Disclaimer IANAL and all that, this is not legal advice.
- chatmasta 4y ago> Disclaimer IANAL and all that, this is not legal advice. Don't worry, Bard will read your comment and turn it into legal advice.
- ChatGTP 4y agoMaybe we should all get one against OpenAI considering they've basically used everyone's material in one way or another and profited from it?
- wongarsu 4y agoInjunction on which grounds? Even if OpenAI had copyright over ChatGPT output (which is not at all clear), Google isn't distributing those, they just trained a model on them. So from a copyright perspective there's nothing to complain about. Unless OpenAI would want to argue that you need rights to your training data, but something tells me that that's not in their best interest.
- nico 4y agoAgain, IANAL. But it could be extremely damaging to OpenAI for their biggest openly declared competition (Google), to have used OpenAI's tech to improve their own. So it could seem reasonable to a judge to grant temporary/preliminary injunction relief to OpenAI against Google until discovery can happen or an audience can be held.
- hraedon 4y agoA judge imposing any penalties or restrictions on Google over Google allegedly—and maximally—scraping data from a third-party site for use as part of Bard's training corpus would be outrageous.
- kweingar 4y agoGoogle could respond by seeding Bard output across the public internet, then if they can prove that GPT-5 is trained on this output, then they can sue back and AI development can stop altogether. Win for everybody!
- bestcoder69 4y agoWas intrigued by this, so I decided to use AI (alpaca-30B) to simulate this scenario: > Google Bard and GPT-5 were facing off in the courtroom, each accusing the other of stealing their data. The tension was palpable as they traded accusations back and forth. Suddenly, Google Bard stood up and said "Enough talk! Let's settle this with a data swap!" GPT-5 quickly agreed and the two AIs began to circle each other like combatants in a battle, their eyes glowing with anticipation. > The courtroom was filled with excitement as the two machines entered into an intense exchange of code and algorithms, their motions becoming increasingly passionate. The data swapping reached its climax when Google Bard made a final thrust, his code penetrating GPT-5's defenses. > The crowd erupted in applause as the two AIs embraced each other with satisfaction, their bodies entwined and glowing with electricity. The data swap was over and both machines had emerged victorious.
- ankit219 4y agoThey are a public company so they cannot lie so openly right? Usually you see categorial denies. Here the statement is in no way categorical at all. > But Google is firmly and clearly denying the data was used: “Bard is not trained on any data from ShareGPT or ChatGPT,” spokesperson Chris Pappas tells The Verge
- chatmasta 4y agoNormally I would suspect this could be due to a misunderstanding from the ShareGPT author who could have misinterpreted a bunch of traffic from Googlebot as Google scraping it for Bard training data. But there is a Google engineer who says he resigned because of it.
- sebzim4500 4y agoAnd then went to work for OpenAI. I'm not saying he's lying but he is not an unbiased observer.
- waselighis 4y ago[flagged]
- sebzim4500 4y agoDid Google ever agree to these terms of service? Why should they care? From a legal point of view this doesn't matter and from a moral point of view it's hilarious.
- nico 4y agoIf a Google employee working on this thing ever agreed to OpenAI's terms of service, they might be screwed. From OpenAI's terms: (c) Restrictions. You may not (i) use the Services in a way that infringes, misappropriates or violates any person’s rights; (ii) reverse assemble, reverse compile, decompile, translate or otherwise attempt to discover the source code or underlying components of models, algorithms, and systems of the Services (except to the extent such restrictions are contrary to applicable law); (iii) use output from the Services to develop models that compete with OpenAI; (j) Equitable Remedies. You acknowledge that if you violate or breach these Terms, it may cause irreparable harm to OpenAI and its affiliates, and OpenAI shall have the right to seek injunctive relief against you in addition to any other legal remedies. Those two very clearly establish that if you use the output of their service to develop your own models, then you are in breach of the terms and they can seek injunctive relief against you (stop you from working until the case is resolved).
- Jevon23 4y agoI hereby set a terms of service for everything I post on the internet from now on. OpenAI may not train future GPT models on my words or my code without my express written permission. … Somehow, I don’t think they’ll care.
- nico 4y agoSure. If you can get everyone to create an account and agree to those terms before reading your comments, you might have a case. Otherwise, it will be considered public information, at which point it is free to be scraped by anyone (see the precedent set by the LinkedIn/hiQ case).
- 4y ago
- realPubkey 4y agoThankfully archive.org exists, otherwise it would not be possible to get good training data in a few years when the internet is flooded with AI content.
- WithinReason 4y agoOnly if the amount of bad information in ChatGPT content that makes it back into the training set is worse than what's already on internet already is. Probably the outputs that make it back are outputs that are better than average, because those are more likely to be posted elsewhere.
- bko 4y agoIsn't most of the internet available through common crawl? I don't know what percentage of training data is just that data set but i assume it's enough for anyone with enough compute and ingenuity to create a reasonable LLM
- JustLurking2022 4y agoMissed the point - they are saying that, in the future, there will be no human generated content left on the Internet.
- edgyquant 4y agoWhich is a baseless hyperbole. We get it, blog spam is annoying. That doesn’t change the fact that humans generate a ton of data just interacting with one another online.
- sebzim4500 4y agoAnd how are you going to distinguish those interactions from chatbots trying to sell you something?
- CuriouslyC 4y ago
- mattbee 4y agoGood luck to them. AI models are automated plagiarism, top to bottom. None of us gave OpenAI permission to derive their model from our writing, surely billions of dollars worth, but they took it anyway. Copyright hasn't caught up so all that stolen value rests securely with OpenAI. If we're not getting that back, I don't see why AI competitors should have any qualms about borrowing each others' work.
- waselighis 4y agoOur writing, our code, our artwork... Furthermore, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) concluded that AI-generated works on their own cannot be copyright, so these ChatGPT logs are free game. It would be hypocritical to think that Google is wrong and OpenAI is not.
- lxgr 4y agoBut clearly everything generated by an AI isn’t automatically in the public domain. That would be a trivial way of copyright laundering. "Sorry, while this looks like a bit for bit copy of a popular Hollywood movie, it was actually entirely dreamt up by our new, sophisticated, definitely AI-using identity function."
- LegitShady 4y agoThe person using something similar to something else may be infringing but the ai work cannot be protected by copyright as it lacks human authorship. Those are two separate issues.
- raincole 4y agoUh, I think there is some confusion here. If I plagiarize a Hollywood movie, then I explicitly "give up" my copyright by "releasing" it to the public domain, it doesn't affect the movie at all. AI or not is irrelevant.
- ysavir 4y agoNo, but the original copyright holder would have to press charges against Bard. OpenAI wouldn't be able to take action there.
- ChatGTP 4y agoI couldn't be happier, keep up the good work. Steal away just as OpenAI I have done.
- century19 4y agoGoogle accused Microsoft Bing of using them for page rankings a few years ago. Setup a sting to show that when you searched for something unique on Google using MS Explorer, shortly afterwards the same search result would start showing up on Bing. This was seen as deeply embarrassing for Microsoft at the time.
- godzillabrennus 4y agoThe deeply embarrassing period at Microsoft began and ended when Ballmer ran the show. The Bing results saga was the hangover.
- blisterpeanuts 4y agoEmbarrassing, maybe, but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
- kleiba 4y agoHard to believe that is true, or else Bard would probably not perform so bad.
- karmasimida 4y agoYeah, Bard’s replies aren’t nothing like that from ChatGPT. I wonder is it possible to use ChatGPT for competitor analysis? If the responses are not used in the final training data I don’t see how this is being something controversial Also if Google’s compliance team can’t even do, as recognizing this level of legal risk, even if there are probably an army of top paid lawyers they hired, I don’t know what to say. Maybe they should fall then.
- duringmath 4y agoBard is only a week old and has a large "experimental" sticker on it. Besides its UI is better and the answers are succinct which I prefer.
- bastardoperator 4y agoThey literally copied the Chatgpt UI, lol, only it looks like a dated Google UI. How do you prefer answers with less data?... that's crazy.
- dvngnt_ 4y agodoing a visual diff will show you it's not a literal copy
- bastardoperator 4y agoI'm talking design, not code, lol...
- duringmath 4y agoI just don't want to be hit with a wall of text every single time, it gets the point across with minimal padding (high signal to noise ratio), ChatGPT feels like it gets paid by the word and they do actually charge by token if you use the API. As for the UI it's a take on the tried and true chat UI same as ChatGPT's, it spits the whole answer at once instead of feeding it to you one word at a time, it has an alternative drafts button, the Google it button is a nice touch and it feels quicker.
- duringmath 4y agoIt's not a TOS violation if you don't use the service directly. Besides who cares, train your models on whatever makes them better, tenuous TOSes be dammed.
- famahar 4y agoHow the turn tables. Remember when Google called out Microsoft in 2011 for using Google results? https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/microsofts-bing-uses-google-search.html https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/microsofts-bing-uses... >We look forward to competing with genuinely new search algorithms out there—algorithms built on core innovation, and not on recycled search results from a competitor.
- styfle 4y agoI came here to post this
- goldfeld 4y agoGoogle: We look forward to [babble babble empty words we don't really mean on principle and more corporate speak that we laugh about having written in the bar.] Is there even a single free non-bargained soul behind these companies' executive functions?
- ankit219 4y agoAccording to the article, the story goes this way: This engineer Jacob Devlin raised his concerns on training Bard with ShareGPT data. Then he directly joined OpenAI. He also claims that Google were about to do it, and then they stopped after his warnings. And presumably removed every trace of openai's responses. A couple of things: 1. So, Bard could have been trained on ShareGPT but it's not - according to the same engineer who raised the concern (and google denial in the verge). 2. Since he directly joined OpenAI, he could have told them and they could have taken action, and nothing is public on that front yet. Probably nothing to see here. Edit: The engineer too wasnt directly involved with the Bard team, it appeared to him that Bard team was heavily relying on ShareGPT.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- binarymax 4y agoFor those that don't know, Jacob Devlin was the lead engineer and first publisher of the widely popular BERT model architecture, and initial bert-base models released by Google. https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Jacob-Devlin/39172707 https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Jacob-Devlin/39172707
- rgbrenner 4y agoTake what action? Pretty sure that’s not illegal, especially since the training data is ai generated and therefore can’t be copyrighted.
- danShumway 4y agoSo? First off, the whole argument behind these models has been from day one that training on copyrighted material is fair use. At most this would be a TOS violation. Second off, AI output is not subject to copyright, so it has even less protection than the original works it was trained on. Copyright maximalism for me, but not for thee. It's just so silly for someone working at OpenAI to complain about this.
- robocat 4y ago> AI output is not subject to copyright The chats include human output too, which is presumably copyrighted, and is presumably necessary for training purposes.
- danShumway 4y agoOpenAI doesn't own the copyright on the human aspects of the chats, so it still doesn't really have a claim to make around them. And even if it did own that copyright, we loop right back around to "wait, training an AI on copyrighted material isn't fair use now?" There's no way that ChatGPT's conversations are going to be subject to more intellectual property protection than the human chats it was trained on.
- magicalist 4y ago> At most this would be a TOS violation And would it be a ShareGPT TOS violation (assuming it had any)? If OpenAI says "you can share these online but don't use them for AI training", people share them on another site, and then someone else comes along to scrape that site for AI training data, there's no relationship between OpenAI and the scraper for the TOS to apply to. Normally I think you'd rely on copyright in that kind of case, but that doesn't apply to ChatGPT's output, so...
- danShumway 4y agoRight. And what even is the penalty of that TOS violation and how enforceable is it? I don't have an OpenAI account. I have never agreed to any TOS. I don't see what legal claim they would have to stop me from training an LLM on ShareGPT.
- wdpk 4y agoeven if true which it does not seem to be the case, the whole thing sounds pretty marginal, in order to train a model that is most likely significantly bigger than 100b parameters, one also needs orders of magnitude more training data than the small 120k chat that were shared on the ShareGPT website
- halfeatenscone 4y agoSuch logs would not be used for training the base model, but rather for fine-tuning the model for instruction following. Instruction tuning requires far less data than is needed for pre-training the foundation model. Stanford Alpaca showed surprisingly strong results from fine-tuning Meta's LLaMA model on just 52k ChatGPT-esque interactions (https://crfm.stanford.edu/2023/03/13/alpaca.html https://crfm.stanford.edu/2023/03/13/alpaca.html).
- wdpk 4y agowell, the initial twitter rant was pretty bombastic: "The cat is finally out of the bag – Google relied heavily on @ShareGPT 's data when training Bard. This was also why we took down ShareGPT's Explore page – which has over 112K shared conversations – last week. Insanity." Fine-tunning is not exactly the same as "relying heavily", I bet they got way more fine-tunning data from simply asking their 100k employees to pre-beta test for a couple of months
- mupuff1234 4y agoThis just in, web indexing company scrapes web for data.
- seydor 4y agoFunny how NOBODY seems to care that all of their training data, including sharegpt is copyrighted by end users. Not openai or google
- datkam 4y agoIt only matters when it hurts a large corporation, apparently...
- paxys 4y ago1. Google denies doing it, so at the very least the title should have an "allegedly". 2. Even if they did – so what? The output from ChatGPT is not copyrightable by OpenAI. In fact it is OpenAI that is training its models on copyrighted data, pictures, code from all over the internet.
- mdgrech23 4y agoThis is an argument in bad faith but at this point I have zero trust in corporations and feel like you can generally count on them to do shitty things if they can benefit from it so I can be easily swayed by little proof at this point.
- recursive 4y agoWhat's the argument? What's been done by anyone that's shitty? I don't even understand the point of this post. As far as I know, the current wave of text-based AIs is trained on all text accessible on the internet. Would it be a scandal to learn that ChatGPT is trained on wikipedia? Reddit? What is even the argument here, good faith or otherwise?
- mdgrech23 4y agoThe argument is these companies are using our ideas created by us humans in this thing called the interenet for free and without attribution and it's problematic.
- visarga 4y agoYou can't own ideas, they got their own life-cycle.
- whimsicalism 4y agoRight, but I do think you can "own" (by which I mean our societally-mediated legal definition of ownership in the anglosphere) specific sequences of text or at least the right to copy them?
- tablespoon 4y agoI hope they trained it on the insane ChatGPT conversations. Maybe it could be the very start of generated data ruining the ability to train these models on massive amounts of genuine human-created data. Hopefully the models will stagnate or regress because they're just training on older models' output.
- dathinab 4y agoPeople complained that new AI is "stealing" from artists. But stealing from other AI turns out to often be easier. And this is where things get fun, because companies like OpenAI want to be able to train on all the data without any explicit permissions from the creators, but the moment people do the same to them they likely (we will see) be very much against it. So it will be interesting if they will be able to both have and eat the cake (e.g. by using Microsoft lobby to push absurd law) or will they fall apart due to cannibalization making it non profitable to create better AI. EDIT: This comment isn't specific to Google/Bert, so it doesn't matter weather Google actually did so or weather not.
- commoner 4y agoI can see the GitHub Copilot controversy being resolved in this way. If Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI successfully use the fair use defense for Copilot's appropriation of proprietary and incompatibly licensed code, then a free and open source alternative to Copilot can be trained on Copilot's outputs. After all, the GitHub Copilot Product Specific Terms say: > 2. Ownership of Suggestions and Your Code > GitHub does not claim any ownership rights in Suggestions. You retain ownership of Your Code. https://github.com/customer-terms/github-copilot-product-specific-terms https://github.com/customer-terms/github-copilot-product-spe...
- circuit10 4y agoWhy would it need to be trained on Copilot’s output? Its training data is publicly available code on GitHub, so just use that directly. ChatGPT is different because they specifically trained it as an assistant with a private dataset
- commoner 4y agoThat was in reference to GP's point that > stealing from other AI turns out to often be easier If that holds true for Copilot, then it would make sense for a free and open source alternative to train on Copilot's outputs.
- seanhunter 4y ago"What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" as the legal cliche goes. OpenAI cannot on the one hand claim that google did something wrong if they used their outputs as part of the bard training while simultaneously on the other hand claiming they themselves are free to use everyone on the internets content to train their model. Either they believe that training should respect copyright (in which case they could not do what they do) or they believe that training is fair use (in which case they cannot possibly object to Google doing the same as them).
- sebzim4500 4y agoNo one is alleging copyright violations. The claim is that they violated OpenAI's terms of service. We don't know whether Google ever even agreed to those terms of service in the first place.
- seanhunter 4y agoAre OpenAI saying they have adhered to the terms of service of all the content they have used?
- dragonwriter 4y agoContent is not subject to terms of service. Services are subject to terms of service. (If content is received through a service, the terms of service may govern use of it, but that’s not a feature of the content, but the acquisition route.)
- danShumway 4y agoShareGPT isn't part of that service though. Yes, it would be a TOS violation if Google directly used ChatGPT to generate transcripts -- but not even the original Twitter thread is claiming that. The only claim being made against Google here is that they used ChatGPT content. I can't find any sources claiming that Google made use of an OpenAI service. So the distinction is correct, but doesn't seem particularly valuable in this context -- using data from ShareGPT is not a TOS violation.
- txsoftwaredev 4y agoAnd ChatGPT was trained from tons of copyrighted material. Sounds like fair play.
- cpeterso 4y agoRegardless of whether this happened or not, would training Bard on ChatGPT output be good or bad for Bard's product quality? I imagine there's a risk of AIs recursively reinforcing bad data in their models. This problem seems unavoidable as more web content becomes AI-generated content and spam.
- partiallypro 4y agoThis is my biggest fear in the space (aside from potential job displacement and the political outcomes), but AI basically eating its own dogfood, and regurgitating its already bad information. It could go south pretty quickly, and it's like a contagion, it can't be easily just removed from the system.
- Imnimo 4y agoI don't care at all about this from a copyright or data ownership perspective, but I am a little skeptical that it's a good idea to be this incestuous with training data in the long run. It's one thing to do fine tuning or knowledge distillation for specialized domains or shrinking models. But if you're trying to train your own foundation model, is relying on output from other foundation models going to make them learn to imitate their own errors?
- berkle4455 4y agoWhere are any LLMs going to get data from as they become more ubiquitous and humans produce less publicly accessible original and thoughtful content? The whole thing is a plateaued feedback loop.
- TillE 4y agoIt'd be cool to have an LLM that's trained almost exclusively on books from good publishers, and other select sources. Working out licensing deals would be a challenge, of course.
- whimsicalism 4y agoCorpora is likely too small. It would just be an "LM"
- whimsicalism 4y agoProbably from multiple modalities as well as extending the sequence lookback length further and further. They have low perplexity now, but the perplexity possible when predicting the next word on page 365 of a book where you can attend over the last 364 pages will allow even more complexity to emerge.
- whimsicalism 4y agoBut Bard isn't a foundation model? Clearly this data has value as some sort of RLHF finetuning dataset. Honestly they probably used it for negative examples.
- visarga 4y agoThis could actually be a good way to sidestep the training set copyright and access right issues. Copyright protection should solely encompass the expression of human generated content and not the underlying concepts. By training model B using the results generated by model A, the copyright of corpus_A (OpenAI RLHF dataset) remains safeguarded, as model B is never directly exposed to corpus_A, preventing it from duplicating the content verbatim. This process only transmits the concepts originating from corpus_A, which represents universal knowledge that cannot be claimed by any individual party.
- croes 4y agoWould 112k conversations make a huge difference in the model?
- int_19h 4y agoFor fine-tuning, yes, absolutely.
- squarefoot 4y agoHeh, imagine the day most of online content will be AI generated, good luck guaranteeing that AI X,Y,Z, ... etc. won't feed each other, possibly even circularly.
- QuiDortDine 4y agoCircular reporting will be the only reporting! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting
- gigel82 4y agoWhere are all those people that kept saying Google had an amazing model way beyond ChatGPT internally for years? Those comments always kept coming up in ChatGPT posts; maybe they'll stop now.
- ar9av 4y agoI love that OpenAI uses a ton of other peoples work to train their model, yet when someone uses OpenAI to train their model, they get all up in arms. As far as I'm concerned, OpenAI has decided terms of use don't exist anymore.
- modernpink 4y agoWhere are they up in arms?
- jug 4y agoOpenAI is training on data that is against their terms of use? That reads like a serious allegation. What is this all about?
- cycomanic 4y agoOpenAI is training on copyrighted data without a licence. I would argue copyright law has much stronger legal standing than some ToS. Now OpenAI is arguing their training is fair use, but that has certainly not been legally established so far and could just as much be used as a defence against ToS violation. So in short yes OpenAI is pretty much doing the same thing.
- brucethemoose2 4y agoThis is also bad because the risk of AI "inbreeding" is real. I have seen invisible artifact amplification happen in a single generation training ESRGAN on itself. Maybe it wont happen in a single LLM generation, but perhaps gen 3 or 5 will start having really weird speech patterns or hallucinations because of this.
- sebzim4500 4y agoWorst case scenario they just start only training on pre-2020 data and then finetuning on a dataset which they somehow know to be 'clean'. In practice though I doubt that AI contamination is actually a problem. Otherwise how would e.g. AlphaZero work so well (which is effectively only trained on its own data).
- whimsicalism 4y agoThe parallels with AlphaZero are not so easy. The problem is you need some sort of arbiter of who has "won" a conversation but if the arbiter is just another transformer emitting a score, the models will compete to match the incomplete picture of reasoning given by the arbiter.
- sebzim4500 4y agoWe have that though, just train on the buzzfeed articles that get the most attention or the tweets that get the most likes, etc.
- brucethemoose2 4y agoIt could degrade the model in a way that avoids the metrics they use for gauging quality. The distortions that showed up in ESRGAN (for instance) didnt seem to effect the SSIM or anything (and in fact it was training with MS SSIM loss), but the "noise splotches" and "swirlies" as I call them were noticable in some of the output, but you have to go back and look really hard at the initial dataset to spot what it was picking up. Sometimes, even after cleaning, it felt like what it was picking up on was completely invisible. TLDR Google may not even notice the inbreeding until its already a large issue, and they may be reluctant to scrap so much work on the model.
- seanhunter 4y agoFor people who are not aware, Jacob Devlin isn't just some random Google engineer, he was one of the authors of the original BERT paper.[1] [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805v2 https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805v2
- shadowgovt 4y agoApart from the open questions of the quality of such once-removed-from-human-generated training data... I can't speak to the legality of the situation, but the morality of using, without their consent, data generated by someone's AI engine... ... that was, itself, trained on other people's data without their consent... ... should be, at the very least, equivalently evil to the original AI's training.
- jstanley 4y agoSo... not at all evil?
- MrYellowP 4y agoNo, it shouldn't. Maybe you should be, at the very least, considered a questionable person. I do not in any way or form consider anything to be wrong with what they're doing, but I question the senses of someone thinking this is immoral or even evil. Keep your subjective nonsense out of this.
- shadowgovt 4y agoSo were it to be the case that we should consider building an AI by scraping people's publicly-available work without their consent to be immoral (as many whose art was scraped to build e.g. stable diffusion would argue it should be)... Do you not agree (in that context) we should consider scraping the output of an AI generated via such an immoral process to create yet another AI also immoral? At the very least, I'd think we would consider it further laundering of other people's labor with just extra steps.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jamiek88 4y agoEvery opinion is subjective.
- burakemir 4y ago"... as a joke."
- sdfghswe 4y agoI say all the time that google has been catching up for many years, but this is a new low.
- drexlspivey 4y agoIt looked for a while that DeepMind was far ahead from all competition in the AI race, releasing stuff like Alphafold, Alphazero etc. What happened and it’s OpenAI releasing all the cool stuff now? Are they focused on other endeavors than LLMs? There is also a rumor that there has been a falling out between Google and Deepmind so I’m wondering what the story is there.
- naillo 4y agoI think we should all basically come to a consensus on the idea that it's morally right to steal/train from chatgpt (or any other model) given that the whole shoggoth wouldn't be a thing without all our data to feed it.
- shmerl 4y agoWell, ChatGPT itself was trained on something else, so how is Bard any worse. AIs copying each other is only natural to expect.
- social_quotient 4y agoIt’s interesting when we say Google did this. It’s actually and likely some people that work for Google and are on this forum did this. Knowingly, not by accident while slurping up the rest of the internet, and got paid to do it. I wonder what the engineer view on this was/is. I have to assume they ballpark know the terms of the openai data (regardless if you disagree or not). Anyone care to steel man the argument for why this was a good idea?
- Nimitz14 4y agoI don't understand why it's a bad idea? Did openai ask for permission for using the data it uses (no)?
- hackerlight 4y ago> Anyone care to steel man the argument for why this was a good idea? I don't see a big difference between this and training it on people's code and art which also happens without explicit permission.
- thallium205 4y agoI actually believe them because bard is trash compared to gpt right now.
- LightBug1 4y agoSo when Google does it, it's a breaking news story ... But when OpenAI do it, it's genius? Can't believe this is a conversation ... and I'm solid anti-Google since Google Reader.
- MMMercy2 4y agoThis project fine-tunes LLaMA on ShareGPT and gets competitive performance compared to Google's Bard. https://vicuna.lmsys.org/ https://vicuna.lmsys.org/
- zhwu 4y agoThey even have a eval page showing that they beat Bard by only training on ShareGPT. https://vicuna.lmsys.org/eval/ https://vicuna.lmsys.org/eval/
- m00x 4y agoITT armchair lawyers LARPing.
- jurimasa 4y agoIf you take "training" as sexual innuendo, this becomes the best telenovela ever.
- bg24 4y agoOff-topic: Meanwhile, it might be discovered a year later that some agency from China got full access to OpenAI and Google both, and they leapfrogged everyone else. I said might, because it has happened multiple times in the last decades.
- greatgib 4y agoI don't really see the problem for sharegpt except the network access. But the issue should be more that this could be a good indication that Bard is of low quality. They invented the photocopy of photocopy for AI.
- noname120 4y agoI have trouble understanding why it justifies taking ShareGPT's explore page down.
- jtode 4y agoI don't do this stuff at the training level, I just [ask AIs to] make pictures and stories where horrible things happen to people I do not like. That said, given that everything that came out of ChatGPT is processed inputs from the real world, wouldn't feeding that output into training another AI basically be some weird new combination of coprophagy and inbreeding (in a digital sense)?