> It's in the LLaMa.cpp original research paper To my understanding: * Wowfunhappy said "I really don't see how you could prove OpenAI did that", verve_rat re

> It's in the LLaMa.cpp original research paper To my understanding: * Wowfunhappy said "I really don't see how you could prove OpenAI did that", verve_rat replied "they admitted it in public", I asked "where OpenAI have admitted this" and noted "OpenAI are still secretive about their training datasets" - specifically about the OpenAI claim * LLaMA(.cpp) is (an unofficial implementation of) Facebook's leaked model On balance of probabilities I'd guess that OpenAI did train on material not legally acquired, but as far as I'm aware they've never actually admitted to what's in their dataset as is being claimed. > It's really weird. I'm completely split and inable to live with a decision either way in this case due to knock on consequences. I think strengthening of IP law risks hindering the field (of which the majority is uncontroversially positive but too boring for press attention, like defect detection, language translation, spam/DDoS filtering, agriculture/weather/logistics modelling, etc.) while still ending up hurting individuals and FOSS/academic research more than those with large data moats (Microsoft with Github repos, Google with Youtube videos, Adobe and Getty with stock images, etc.)