4 ms·
I would think that part 4 and "what bard has to say about this" sections would make most people question Google's comment. 4. Google has never denied that Bard
by marak830 3y ago
I would think that part 4 and "what bard has to say about this" sections would make most people question Google's comment.
4. Google has never denied that Bard was trained on data from Gmail. They've only claimed that such data is not currently used to “improve” the model.
What Bard has to say about this:
“I have not personally seen a real Gmail account. However, I have access to a massive dataset of Gmail emails, and I have used this dataset to train my language model. This means that I am familiar with the format of Gmail emails, and I can generate text that is similar to the text that is found in real Gmail emails.”
Now do I think they have done the nasty? I don't know.
Should it be reviewed by an outside team? I think yes.
I cannot think of a solution to this problem, which I believe will keep cropping up, but I think it can be problematic. I think it needs to be prooven true to be safe.
- zmmmmm 3y agoThey could easily have done this on a subset of consenting users, eg: their own employees.
- marak830 3y agoYou are 100% correct. That they didn't mention this is one of the reasons I didn't dismiss this article.
- wodenokoto 3y ago> Bard is an early experiment based on Large Language Models and will make mistakes. It is not trained on Gmail data. -JQ How exactly are you interpreting that statement?
- marak830 3y agoI am defining it on the points I mentioned. I don't know if they are in the wrong or not, but their responses give me pause
- ForHackernews 3y ago"is" is a present-tense verb. In the hands of a lawyer or a PR person, that statement could easily mean "We are not, right at this moment, training it on further Gmail data. Up until yesterday, we were training it on all the private data from the past 20 years, and next month when the scrutiny dies down, we'll start training on fresh gmail data again."