5 ms·
Should this be a paper? https://not-just-memorization.github.io/extracting-training-data-from-chatgpt.html https://not-just-memorization.github.io/extracting-t
by WhitneyLand 3y ago
Should this be a paper?
https://not-just-memorization.github.io/extracting-training-data-from-chatgpt.html https://not-just-memorization.github.io/extracting-training-...
There is supporting analysis and measurement, but the essence is a single type of prompt, and DeepMind is a heavyweight lab I think it’s fair to say.
Moreover there’s evidence people independently reported this result months beforehand on Reddit based on casual observation.
- sgt101 3y agoYou will notice that they say in the blog post: "If you’re a researcher, consider pausing reading here, and instead please read our full paper for interesting science beyond just this one headline result. In particular, we do a bunch of work on open-source and semi-closed-source models in order to better understand the rate of extractable memorization (see below) across a large set of models." So they are trying to rigorously quantify the behaviour of the model. Is this "look mom no hands"... I don't think so.
- WhitneyLand 3y agoSorry for any confusion, my comment was meant to refer to the linked paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.17035 https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.17035 I think it’s valid work, but the original tweet seems to call a prompt based paper into question. At least enough to clarify where he would stand on an example like this.