3 ms·

This isn't really that newsworthy. Grok was probably trained on ChatGPT logs, just like the litany of other chat-oriented LLMs that are also open source. They s

by ronsor 3y ago

This isn't really that newsworthy. Grok was probably trained on ChatGPT logs, just like the litany of other chat-oriented LLMs that are also open source. They still should've filtered out the OpenAI canned responses (there are datasets with that filter).

gtirloni 3y ago
They shouldn't have done that though. Filtering is not the solution. OpenAI terms of service explicitly say it cannot be used to create a competing product. Is it hard to filter ChatGPT output from random chats shared in articles? Yes, it is. That's their problem though.
- nrb 3y ago
  Can they keep a straight face when trying to justify this clause of their terms? Isn't training on content without permission kind of their whole business model?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Can they keep a straight face when trying to justify this clause of their terms? Probably. > Isn't training on content without permission kind of their whole business model? Right, their business model rests on the argument that copyright law doesn't require permission from copyright holders. They aren't relying on copyright law, but contract law (which only binds direct users, but applies to material not covered by copyright and applies in circumstances where even if material was covered by copyright use would be allowed as, e.g, fair use.) Is it an attempt to pull up the ladder? Obviously. But both the safety mission of the charity and the commercial competitive interests of the for profit provide rationales for this, so there is no reason to think that just because it hobbles others in trying to catch up that it would be difficult for them to do it with a straight face.
- WillPostForFood 3y ago
  If they aren't OpenAI customers so they aren't subject to the terms. There is a meaningful distinction between using ChatGPT directly, putting in the prompts and taking the results, and just finding random output that other people have published in the internet and using that.
  - gtirloni 3y ago
    That's actually a very good point I hadn't considered.
- ilikehurdles 3y ago
  > OpenAI terms of service apply only to people who agree to OpenAI's terms of service (its users)
dragonwriter 3y ago
> This isn't really that newsworthy. Grok was probably trained on ChatGPT logs If Musk's "anti-woke" AI was just trained on logs from what he calls "woke AI", that would, actually, be particularly newsworthy. (The explanation they have put forward is that this is not the case, but they just failed to realize that blindly ingesting web content would bring in a lot of ChatGPT-derived content.)
- bundie 3y ago
  Exactly.
- skygazer 3y ago
  I have a hard time believing that just pulling publicly available web data would instill a professed identity of an openAI creation, rather than a gen-x hipster or zoomer, or whatever. Seems so much more likely they trained predominately on gpt-3.5 output on the sly. And I’m not even sure that would do it — how often does open chatGPT identify openAI in normal responses? And OpenAI instills that sense of identity with fine tuning with synthetic data.

by ronsor 3y ago

gtirloni 3y ago

They shouldn't have done that though. Filtering is not the solution. OpenAI terms of service explicitly say it cannot be used to create a competing product. Is it hard to filter ChatGPT output from random chats shared in articles? Yes, it is. That's their problem though.

nrb 3y ago
Can they keep a straight face when trying to justify this clause of their terms? Isn't training on content without permission kind of their whole business model?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Can they keep a straight face when trying to justify this clause of their terms? Probably. > Isn't training on content without permission kind of their whole business model? Right, their business model rests on the argument that copyright law doesn't require permission from copyright holders. They aren't relying on copyright law, but contract law (which only binds direct users, but applies to material not covered by copyright and applies in circumstances where even if material was covered by copyright use would be allowed as, e.g, fair use.) Is it an attempt to pull up the ladder? Obviously. But both the safety mission of the charity and the commercial competitive interests of the for profit provide rationales for this, so there is no reason to think that just because it hobbles others in trying to catch up that it would be difficult for them to do it with a straight face.
WillPostForFood 3y ago
If they aren't OpenAI customers so they aren't subject to the terms. There is a meaningful distinction between using ChatGPT directly, putting in the prompts and taking the results, and just finding random output that other people have published in the internet and using that.
- gtirloni 3y ago
  That's actually a very good point I hadn't considered.
ilikehurdles 3y ago
> OpenAI terms of service apply only to people who agree to OpenAI's terms of service (its users)

dragonwriter 3y ago

> This isn't really that newsworthy. Grok was probably trained on ChatGPT logs If Musk's "anti-woke" AI was just trained on logs from what he calls "woke AI", that would, actually, be particularly newsworthy. (The explanation they have put forward is that this is not the case, but they just failed to realize that blindly ingesting web content would bring in a lot of ChatGPT-derived content.)

bundie 3y ago
Exactly.
skygazer 3y ago
I have a hard time believing that just pulling publicly available web data would instill a professed identity of an openAI creation, rather than a gen-x hipster or zoomer, or whatever. Seems so much more likely they trained predominately on gpt-3.5 output on the sly. And I’m not even sure that would do it — how often does open chatGPT identify openAI in normal responses? And OpenAI instills that sense of identity with fine tuning with synthetic data.