4 ms·

> Do you have any evidence that the weights for versioned models are being changed without notifications? I think in a real scientific process, it's upon those

> Do you have any evidence that the weights for versioned models are being changed without notifications? I think in a real scientific process, it's upon those who claim that they are not to provide the evidence.

IanCal 3y ago
I'm sorry, but that's entirely ridiculous. You're mangling up a concept of burden of proof here. You can easily see this because it can be flipped around easily - you made a claim that they are being changed, even every few weeks! Should it really be on me to show that your very specific claim is false? Aside - but even if the model weights did change, that wouldn't stop research being possible. Otherwise no drug trial could be replicated because you couldn't get the exact same participants at the exact same age.
- dartos 3y ago
  Apples and oranges comparison. You couldn’t get the same participants, but you could get the same drugs. If you could get identical participants, that wouldn’t be very helpful since humans are so varied. But for GPT based papers, what you’re actually testing could change without you knowing. There’s no way to know if a paper is reproducible at all. If you can’t reproduce results, is it really research, or just show and tell?
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    With API you can choose versions fixed to a date. Are you suggesting that OpenAI is lying about these being fixed to a date? Why would they lie about it? The whole point of these versions is so that when you build on top of that it would keep working as you expect.
    - hnfong 3y ago
      I'm not saying they lie about it, but as a hypothetical there could be many reasons to lie. - realizing their model leaks confidential information against malicious prompts - copyright claims against them forcing them to remove bits of data from the training set - serious "alignment" bugs that need to be fixed - vastly improved optimization techniques that slightly affect results in 0.1% of the cases If updating the model would save the company a couple hundred million dollars, they might want to do it. And in some of the cases, I can imagine they have an incentive to keep the update low key.
  - IanCal 3y ago
    > If you can’t reproduce results, is it really research, or just show and tell? You can't start with a statement about clinical trials not being perfectly reproducible and that's fine, then say this. > what you’re actually testing could change without you knowing If people are lying about an extremely important part of their product, which they have little reason to. But then this applies to pretty much everything. Starting with the assumption that people are lying about everything and nothing is as it seems may technically make things more reproducible but it's going to require unbelievable effort for very little return. > There’s no way to know if a paper is reproducible at all. This is a little silly because these models are available extremely easily and at a pay-as-you-go pricing. And again, it requires an assumption that openai is lying about a specific feature of a product.
    - starbugs 3y ago
      > You can't start with a statement about clinical trials not being perfectly reproducible and that's fine, then say this. Nobody said that to begin with. Re-read their comment. > If people are lying about an extremely important part of their product [...] Nobody is alleging that anyone is lying. It's just that we cannot be sure what the research actually refers to, because of the nature of a proprietary/closed model. > This is a little silly because these models are available extremely easily and at a pay-as-you-go pricing. What does this have to do with the parent comment? I don't think it's appropriate to call anyone here silly, just because you don't like their comment and don't have good counter arguments.
      - IanCal 3y ago
        > Nobody is alleging that anyone is lying. Let's be clear, you have made an explicit claim that openai are lying. > What does this have to do with the parent comment? Because many other fields would kill for this level of reproducibility, grab an API key, spend a few quid running a script and you can get the results yourself.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- starbugs 3y ago
  > You can easily see this because it can be flipped around easily - you made a claim that they are being changed, even every few weeks! Should it really be on me to show that your very specific claim is false? Wait a minute? The author of such a paper makes a claim about some observation that's based on the assumption that the studied model is defined in a way. I am disputing that claim since no evidence has been shown that it is defined because no definition has been given. If your twist on this issue would be true, then I would, by definition, have to accept everything that they claim as true without any evidence. That's not called science. That's called authority.
  - IanCal 3y ago
    > I am disputing that claim You are entirely within your rights to say that the authors have assumed that openai is not lying about their models. They've probably also assumed that other paper authors are not lying in their papers. You then say however: > GPT is a closed source/weights, proprietary product that changes every couple of weeks or so. And when I ask for evidence of this very specific claim, you turn around and say the burden is on me to show that you're lying. That is what is butchering the concept of burden of proof. > If your twist on this issue would be true, then I would, by definition, have to accept everything that they claim as true without any evidence. Absolutely not.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - starbugs 3y ago
      Look, the burden of proof in a scientific paper is on the authors. Not on me. A company with a proprietary product that says something is not acceptable evidence in a scientific context. No need to allege that anyone is lying. Lying is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the research is falsifiable. It cannot be falsifiable if you don't know what the actual model is at a given point in time.

IanCal 3y ago

I'm sorry, but that's entirely ridiculous. You're mangling up a concept of burden of proof here. You can easily see this because it can be flipped around easily - you made a claim that they are being changed, even every few weeks! Should it really be on me to show that your very specific claim is false? Aside - but even if the model weights did change, that wouldn't stop research being possible. Otherwise no drug trial could be replicated because you couldn't get the exact same participants at the exact same age.

dartos 3y ago
Apples and oranges comparison. You couldn’t get the same participants, but you could get the same drugs. If you could get identical participants, that wouldn’t be very helpful since humans are so varied. But for GPT based papers, what you’re actually testing could change without you knowing. There’s no way to know if a paper is reproducible at all. If you can’t reproduce results, is it really research, or just show and tell?
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  With API you can choose versions fixed to a date. Are you suggesting that OpenAI is lying about these being fixed to a date? Why would they lie about it? The whole point of these versions is so that when you build on top of that it would keep working as you expect.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    I'm not saying they lie about it, but as a hypothetical there could be many reasons to lie. - realizing their model leaks confidential information against malicious prompts - copyright claims against them forcing them to remove bits of data from the training set - serious "alignment" bugs that need to be fixed - vastly improved optimization techniques that slightly affect results in 0.1% of the cases If updating the model would save the company a couple hundred million dollars, they might want to do it. And in some of the cases, I can imagine they have an incentive to keep the update low key.
- IanCal 3y ago
  > If you can’t reproduce results, is it really research, or just show and tell? You can't start with a statement about clinical trials not being perfectly reproducible and that's fine, then say this. > what you’re actually testing could change without you knowing If people are lying about an extremely important part of their product, which they have little reason to. But then this applies to pretty much everything. Starting with the assumption that people are lying about everything and nothing is as it seems may technically make things more reproducible but it's going to require unbelievable effort for very little return. > There’s no way to know if a paper is reproducible at all. This is a little silly because these models are available extremely easily and at a pay-as-you-go pricing. And again, it requires an assumption that openai is lying about a specific feature of a product.
  - starbugs 3y ago
    > You can't start with a statement about clinical trials not being perfectly reproducible and that's fine, then say this. Nobody said that to begin with. Re-read their comment. > If people are lying about an extremely important part of their product [...] Nobody is alleging that anyone is lying. It's just that we cannot be sure what the research actually refers to, because of the nature of a proprietary/closed model. > This is a little silly because these models are available extremely easily and at a pay-as-you-go pricing. What does this have to do with the parent comment? I don't think it's appropriate to call anyone here silly, just because you don't like their comment and don't have good counter arguments.
    - IanCal 3y ago
      > Nobody is alleging that anyone is lying. Let's be clear, you have made an explicit claim that openai are lying. > What does this have to do with the parent comment? Because many other fields would kill for this level of reproducibility, grab an API key, spend a few quid running a script and you can get the results yourself.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
starbugs 3y ago
> You can easily see this because it can be flipped around easily - you made a claim that they are being changed, even every few weeks! Should it really be on me to show that your very specific claim is false? Wait a minute? The author of such a paper makes a claim about some observation that's based on the assumption that the studied model is defined in a way. I am disputing that claim since no evidence has been shown that it is defined because no definition has been given. If your twist on this issue would be true, then I would, by definition, have to accept everything that they claim as true without any evidence. That's not called science. That's called authority.
- IanCal 3y ago
  > I am disputing that claim You are entirely within your rights to say that the authors have assumed that openai is not lying about their models. They've probably also assumed that other paper authors are not lying in their papers. You then say however: > GPT is a closed source/weights, proprietary product that changes every couple of weeks or so. And when I ask for evidence of this very specific claim, you turn around and say the burden is on me to show that you're lying. That is what is butchering the concept of burden of proof. > If your twist on this issue would be true, then I would, by definition, have to accept everything that they claim as true without any evidence. Absolutely not.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - starbugs 3y ago
    Look, the burden of proof in a scientific paper is on the authors. Not on me. A company with a proprietary product that says something is not acceptable evidence in a scientific context. No need to allege that anyone is lying. Lying is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the research is falsifiable. It cannot be falsifiable if you don't know what the actual model is at a given point in time.