13 ms·

Chinese AI stirs panic at European geoscience society

97 points by rguiscard 2y ago

uoaei 2y ago
I mean, overstated levels of intelligence aside, who thought it was more appropriate to model the geosciences in natural language vs, oh, I don't know, physics and chemistry?
nikhilsimha 2y ago
publicly funded research, but behind paywalls, was scraped to build the chatbot - by “china” not open ai, causes “people” to lose their s**t. i do think ip infringement is not cool in general - but it doesnt seem right that geo research is private property.
- roenxi 2y ago
  I also think this is going to bifurcate scientific research. Communities that are willing to run AI over their knowledge base are going to develop a big advantage over those who don't. I have a friend who applys research to businesses as a consultant. One of his biggest challenges is how to index all the papers and work out what is relevant to a particular topic. I don't know if the current generation of bots are up to the challenge but sooner or later ProfessorGPT will be perfect for that niche. Then journals that force human's to manually research through large numbers of papers will be massive albatrosses that hamper scientific progress.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    > Communities that are willing to run AI over their knowledge base are going to develop a big advantage over those who don't This is debatable. I've seen countless "AI on knowledge base" projects and all have been on a whole not that much better than just using ElasticSearch. Some aspects are better e.g. discovery but some aspects are worse e.g. accuracy, speed when you are looking for something specific. I would argue that simply having a knowledge graph in front that can provide related papers for a topic would accomplish the goals better.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    > Communities that are willing to run AI over their knowledge base are going to develop a big advantage over those who don't. I have a hard time seeing this. If you're an academic or an industrial researcher, the hard part of the literature review isn't finding the relevant papers, it's digesting them--and in some fields (e.g., chemistry), replicating their results. If you're more an industry person trying to apply academic research, well in general, you probably want a good textbook synthesis of the field rather than trying to understand stuff from research papers. From your second paragraph, it seems to me that you're thinking AI will help with the textbook synthesis step, but this is the sort of thing that as far as I can tell, current LLMs are just fundamentally bad at. To use a concrete example, I have been off-and-on poking at research into simplex presolving, and one of the things you quickly find is that just about everybody has their own definition of the "standard model", so to mix and match different papers, you have to start by recasting everything into a single model. And capturing the nuance of "these papers use the same symbols to mean completely different things" isn't a strong point of LLMs.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > If you're more an industry person trying to apply academic research, well in general, you probably want a good textbook synthesis of the field rather than trying to understand stuff from research papers. That sentence there is what will probably be the wedge point that gives LLM-heavy communities an advantage. As LLMs improve, the question becomes "why shouldn't industry people apply academic research directly?". > ... as far as I can tell, current LLMs are just ... We're in the upswing of a new technology, it wasn't that long ago that interesting progress was a monthly or weekly occurrence. I'm not to phased about where we might be right now. Alibaba are one of the companies with every chance of pushing the state of the art forward and regardless of that that state is going to get pushed by someone.
      - DrScientist 2y ago
        To make an analogy, right now using a LLM filter to read the literature is like reading Scientific American or New Scientist - fun, interesting, entertaining and not always right on the detail. Let's say, for example, you wanted to build your own cutting edge LLM - would you just ask an LLM on how to do so? Or would you need to do more, and would a simple literature/internet search be just as effective as a starting point? Note that in my experience - when you are a world expert in some tiny area ( like when doing a PhD ), you realize that quite a large proportion ( ~50% ) of the stuff published in the area you really know about is either wrong in whole or part, and another good proportion doesn't really move the field on. So back to the original question - how did OpenAI get a lead in LLM - the story I heard was they talked to leading academic's about who were the best people in the field and tried to hire them all. ie to paraphrase Richard Feymann on the Emperors nose question - you don't really find out the true answer by averaging over loads of ill-informed opinions - much better to carefully examine the nose/data source yourself.
kordlessagain 2y ago
Copyrights are toast with AI. Consider a corporation with integrated legal defense teams powered by AI agents. They will chew up resources until people give up. Think patent trolls on acid. We seriously need to rethink IP ownership. It's likely an AI trained on a certain amount of IP might be useful in and of itself, perhaps earning a living being good at that particular thing, and maybe that is what will let us ease restrictions of use in other places. I'm just spitballing here. I could be completely wrong.
- lazide 2y ago
  They’d just be blackballed by the courts. It’s already trivial for law firms to generate mountains of bullshit, and seeing the output of some firms first hand, I’d even call it the primary business model for a few of them. But if they don’t stick within certain bounds of sanity, they get sanctioned by the court or can even be disbarred. Judges really don’t like references to non-existent precedence, or making arguments based on laws that don’t actually exist. And opposing council, unlike random ignorant member of the public, has both the incentive and resources to identify bullshit like that. Decreasing the cost to generate bullshit while removing any human checks on it may sound interesting, and might even work for a short period of time, but is going to meet the brick wall of reality pretty quickly. It’s already started to do so in many cases.
- kibwen 2y ago
  > Copyrights are toast with AI. Copyrights are toast for regular people who are up against companies laundering their work through AIs. Copyrights for the megacorps are a different story. If you've ever wanted to see a clash of titans, wait until Microsoft's lawyers meet Disney's.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
    Microsoft has the cash on hand to buy a controlling stake in Disney. Disney is about 5-6% of Microsoft considering market cap. We’d need an Apple v Microsoft battle that’s important enough for boards to demand full litigation.
janalsncm 2y ago
The geopolitics of LLMs is definitely interesting. China censors politics. The West censors intellectual property. I am not equating the two so please excuse the edgy teen dystopia that follows: I keep having this vision of a dystopian future where the Star Spangled Banner is sold off to a private equity firm and anyone who wants to play it has to pay a licensing fee. Of course “freedom-hating” countries have banned it long ago as well. The subversive main character is playing a bootleg copy of it in some politically ambiguous country when police break his door down, but the screen cuts to black before we find out was it the copyright mafia or the dictatorship.
- tw04 2y ago
  >China censors politics. The West censors intellectual property. How does the West "censor Intellectual Property"?
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    China officially does not care about declarations of Intellectual Property from the West (ianal); by extension, they do not censor it. In the US and Commonwealth countries and the EU etc.. copyright material in publications, in various flavors, are behind a paywall in some circumstances.. Elsivier Science publications, for example.. others.. so by extension the prohibition on reproduction and copying is "censorship"
    - kibwen 2y ago
      Y'all, I'm as against our boneheaded copyright regime as anyone, but that ain't what the word "censorship" means.
      - xtracto 2y ago
        I'll say a "state granted monopoly" on distribution is pretty close to censorship. People are not Libres to distribute or use some bunch of text because the judicial arm of the government will prosecute them.
    - 2y ago
Onavo 2y ago
Put the model in the public domain and nobody would complain. If you gatekeep, people will find a reason to complain.
- oefrha 2y ago
  The “panic” is mostly from “a group of publishers, led by Phoebe McMellon, CEO of GeoScienceWorld”. They sure as hell will complain if you threaten their business model of charging ~$50 a pop to read a paper, public domain or not.
defrost 2y ago
Earlier in the press: Geoscience AI in crisis? (17 June 2024) https://geoscientist.online/sections/viewpoint/geoscience-ai-in-crisis/ https://geoscientist.online/sections/viewpoint/geoscience-ai... Paul Cleverley raises concerns about big-data artificial intelligence projects in the geosciences Geologists raise concerns over possible censorship and bias in Chinese chatbot (24 June 2024) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/24/geologists-censorship-bias-chinese-chatbot-geogpt https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/24/g... Tests on Qwen, part of GeoGPT’s underlying AI, reveal geoscience-related questions can produce answers that appear to be influenced by narratives set by the Chinese Communist party. For example, when asked how many people have died in a mining operation in Ghana run by the Shaanxi Mining Company, Qwen says: “I’m unable to provide current or specific information about events, including mining accidents, as my knowledge is based on data up until 2021 and I don’t have real-time access to news updates.” The same question posed to ChatGPT, the chatbot developed by the US company OpenAI, produces the answer: “The Shaanxi Mining Company in Ghana has experienced multiple fatal incidents, resulting in a total of 61 deaths since 2013. This includes a significant explosion in January 2019 that alone claimed 16 lives. ” Eight days ago on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773876 (1 comment | 2 points)
- droopyEyelids 2y ago
  Are miner deaths relevant to a geology-focused tool? The example of its use was to explain the fossil record.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Not relevant to surface geochemistry results, no. Not relevant to airbone geophysics results, no. Not relevant to to drill exploration sampling results, no. Not relevant to Technical | Economic Feasibility studies, no. Not relevant to mining environmental impact studies, no; although deaths, injury and illness in surrounding populations is. Relevant to ongoing minesite safety records and operations, yes. It's a question of scope; a geoscience aware AI that can answer questions about resource availibity, resource extraction and associated risks, costs and impacts that includes the kind of information found in, say, https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/metals-mining https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/met... would be expected to aware of mining deaths. Just as people want to be aware of nuclear risks for power and deaths in lithium processing from accidents and associated radioactive waste. It's being touted as a Geoscience tool, not just a chatty geology database.
bsenftner 2y ago
I remember pleas and slogans of "data wants to be free!" and a generalized public attitude of down with all copyrights and patents. Remember Napster? I find it hard to not think the attitude now is merely the public echoing what "big journalism" is telling them to parrot. I'm so disillusioned.
- atrus 2y ago
  Most of the issues that people have with it are a lack of attribution and using this freely scraped data to turn a profit.
  - zaptrem 2y ago
    I'm sure none of these people use freely available internet data as part of their jobs (i.e., for a profit), right? More specific to this situation, is there really much profit in geology chatbots?
- thatguy0900 2y ago
  Well the Ai companies certainly believe data wants to be free. To them, at least. Probably not to anyone else
- mrbombastic 2y ago
  I’m mostly with you, I am still of that camp and I hope if we have some amazing AI tooling coming that makes humanity more efficient that we don’t get stopped by copyright of all things. That said I am irked when the scraping doesn’t respect copyright but then effort is made to protect the IP of the resulting models.
azinman2 2y ago
Although Hazen understands the wariness about China’s involvement, “I keep my eyes open all the time,” he says. “I sense no agenda whatsoever.” I’m sure they’re spending municipal money, cutting deals with Springer, and working with Alibaba out of the goodness of their hearts because they all care so much about humanity’s understanding of geoscience.
sinuhe69 2y ago
Don’t understand why they didn’t use an open source models to develop the chat bot? While the questions about copyrights and permissions remain unsolved, there is agreeable more transparency and no state control. Why did they have to use a propriety Chinese model? Just because the programmer is Chinese and they didn’t have any alternative?
- rfoo 2y ago
  QWen is an open source model. And for a while it was the top non-English open source model. Meanwhile, it is also a Chinese model.
- itishappy 2y ago
  > Why did they have to use a propriety Chinese model? Just because the programmer is Chinese and they didn’t have any alternative? ??? > It is being developed by Jian Wang, chief technology officer of e-commerce giant Alibaba. Built on Qwen, Alibaba’s own chatbot... https://github.com/QwenLM/Qwen2 https://github.com/QwenLM/Qwen2 https://huggingface.co/Qwen https://huggingface.co/Qwen
mitjam 2y ago
Does anybody know if there are published papers explaining this? I found these two which might be related but not actually about the same thing: GeoGPT: Understanding and Processing Geospatial Tasks through An Autonomous GPT (https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07930 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07930): This does not involve fine-tuning but tool use and prompting for reasoning. BB-GeoGPT: A Framework for Learning a Large Language Model for Geographic Information Science (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381630694_BB-GeoGPT_A_framework_for_learning_a_large_language_model_for_geographic_information_science https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381630694_BB-GeoGPT...): This involves fine-tuning but of smaller models (Llama-2-7b) - the BB stands for "baby".
chucke1992 2y ago
Wasn't it the same with other AIs? Like with saw that with Gemini, copilot etc. where they was not willing to report on certain stuff or provide the response properly.
sim7c00 2y ago
propaganda laden gossip article. I don't get why people write in this light.. You can read it from this sentence: " A year earlier, Irina Artemieva, who is Russian born but left the country decades ago, had taken over as president." 'but left the country decades ago' - what a useless piece of detail showing what is the intent of really writing this. If it was just an interesting/honest note to give about the person, the word 'but' would not be used..
eunos 2y ago
Huh, the article describes more of a power struggle inside the EGU than the AI itself.
BeFlatXIII 2y ago
Good. Information deserves to be free.

97 points by rguiscard 2y ago

I mean, overstated levels of intelligence aside, who thought it was more appropriate to model the geosciences in natural language vs, oh, I don't know, physics and chemistry?

nikhilsimha 2y ago

publicly funded research, but behind paywalls, was scraped to build the chatbot - by “china” not open ai, causes “people” to lose their s**t. i do think ip infringement is not cool in general - but it doesnt seem right that geo research is private property.

roenxi 2y ago
I also think this is going to bifurcate scientific research. Communities that are willing to run AI over their knowledge base are going to develop a big advantage over those who don't. I have a friend who applys research to businesses as a consultant. One of his biggest challenges is how to index all the papers and work out what is relevant to a particular topic. I don't know if the current generation of bots are up to the challenge but sooner or later ProfessorGPT will be perfect for that niche. Then journals that force human's to manually research through large numbers of papers will be massive albatrosses that hamper scientific progress.
- threeseed 2y ago
  > Communities that are willing to run AI over their knowledge base are going to develop a big advantage over those who don't This is debatable. I've seen countless "AI on knowledge base" projects and all have been on a whole not that much better than just using ElasticSearch. Some aspects are better e.g. discovery but some aspects are worse e.g. accuracy, speed when you are looking for something specific. I would argue that simply having a knowledge graph in front that can provide related papers for a topic would accomplish the goals better.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  > Communities that are willing to run AI over their knowledge base are going to develop a big advantage over those who don't. I have a hard time seeing this. If you're an academic or an industrial researcher, the hard part of the literature review isn't finding the relevant papers, it's digesting them--and in some fields (e.g., chemistry), replicating their results. If you're more an industry person trying to apply academic research, well in general, you probably want a good textbook synthesis of the field rather than trying to understand stuff from research papers. From your second paragraph, it seems to me that you're thinking AI will help with the textbook synthesis step, but this is the sort of thing that as far as I can tell, current LLMs are just fundamentally bad at. To use a concrete example, I have been off-and-on poking at research into simplex presolving, and one of the things you quickly find is that just about everybody has their own definition of the "standard model", so to mix and match different papers, you have to start by recasting everything into a single model. And capturing the nuance of "these papers use the same symbols to mean completely different things" isn't a strong point of LLMs.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > If you're more an industry person trying to apply academic research, well in general, you probably want a good textbook synthesis of the field rather than trying to understand stuff from research papers. That sentence there is what will probably be the wedge point that gives LLM-heavy communities an advantage. As LLMs improve, the question becomes "why shouldn't industry people apply academic research directly?". > ... as far as I can tell, current LLMs are just ... We're in the upswing of a new technology, it wasn't that long ago that interesting progress was a monthly or weekly occurrence. I'm not to phased about where we might be right now. Alibaba are one of the companies with every chance of pushing the state of the art forward and regardless of that that state is going to get pushed by someone.
    - DrScientist 2y ago
      To make an analogy, right now using a LLM filter to read the literature is like reading Scientific American or New Scientist - fun, interesting, entertaining and not always right on the detail. Let's say, for example, you wanted to build your own cutting edge LLM - would you just ask an LLM on how to do so? Or would you need to do more, and would a simple literature/internet search be just as effective as a starting point? Note that in my experience - when you are a world expert in some tiny area ( like when doing a PhD ), you realize that quite a large proportion ( ~50% ) of the stuff published in the area you really know about is either wrong in whole or part, and another good proportion doesn't really move the field on. So back to the original question - how did OpenAI get a lead in LLM - the story I heard was they talked to leading academic's about who were the best people in the field and tried to hire them all. ie to paraphrase Richard Feymann on the Emperors nose question - you don't really find out the true answer by averaging over loads of ill-informed opinions - much better to carefully examine the nose/data source yourself.

kordlessagain 2y ago

Copyrights are toast with AI. Consider a corporation with integrated legal defense teams powered by AI agents. They will chew up resources until people give up. Think patent trolls on acid. We seriously need to rethink IP ownership. It's likely an AI trained on a certain amount of IP might be useful in and of itself, perhaps earning a living being good at that particular thing, and maybe that is what will let us ease restrictions of use in other places. I'm just spitballing here. I could be completely wrong.

lazide 2y ago
They’d just be blackballed by the courts. It’s already trivial for law firms to generate mountains of bullshit, and seeing the output of some firms first hand, I’d even call it the primary business model for a few of them. But if they don’t stick within certain bounds of sanity, they get sanctioned by the court or can even be disbarred. Judges really don’t like references to non-existent precedence, or making arguments based on laws that don’t actually exist. And opposing council, unlike random ignorant member of the public, has both the incentive and resources to identify bullshit like that. Decreasing the cost to generate bullshit while removing any human checks on it may sound interesting, and might even work for a short period of time, but is going to meet the brick wall of reality pretty quickly. It’s already started to do so in many cases.
kibwen 2y ago
> Copyrights are toast with AI. Copyrights are toast for regular people who are up against companies laundering their work through AIs. Copyrights for the megacorps are a different story. If you've ever wanted to see a clash of titans, wait until Microsoft's lawyers meet Disney's.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
  Microsoft has the cash on hand to buy a controlling stake in Disney. Disney is about 5-6% of Microsoft considering market cap. We’d need an Apple v Microsoft battle that’s important enough for boards to demand full litigation.

janalsncm 2y ago

The geopolitics of LLMs is definitely interesting. China censors politics. The West censors intellectual property. I am not equating the two so please excuse the edgy teen dystopia that follows: I keep having this vision of a dystopian future where the Star Spangled Banner is sold off to a private equity firm and anyone who wants to play it has to pay a licensing fee. Of course “freedom-hating” countries have banned it long ago as well. The subversive main character is playing a bootleg copy of it in some politically ambiguous country when police break his door down, but the screen cuts to black before we find out was it the copyright mafia or the dictatorship.

tw04 2y ago
>China censors politics. The West censors intellectual property. How does the West "censor Intellectual Property"?
- mistrial9 2y ago
  China officially does not care about declarations of Intellectual Property from the West (ianal); by extension, they do not censor it. In the US and Commonwealth countries and the EU etc.. copyright material in publications, in various flavors, are behind a paywall in some circumstances.. Elsivier Science publications, for example.. others.. so by extension the prohibition on reproduction and copying is "censorship"
  - kibwen 2y ago
    Y'all, I'm as against our boneheaded copyright regime as anyone, but that ain't what the word "censorship" means.
    - xtracto 2y ago
      I'll say a "state granted monopoly" on distribution is pretty close to censorship. People are not Libres to distribute or use some bunch of text because the judicial arm of the government will prosecute them.
  - 2y ago

Onavo 2y ago

Put the model in the public domain and nobody would complain. If you gatekeep, people will find a reason to complain.

oefrha 2y ago
The “panic” is mostly from “a group of publishers, led by Phoebe McMellon, CEO of GeoScienceWorld”. They sure as hell will complain if you threaten their business model of charging ~$50 a pop to read a paper, public domain or not.

defrost 2y ago

Earlier in the press: Geoscience AI in crisis? (17 June 2024) https://geoscientist.online/sections/viewpoint/geoscience-ai-in-crisis/ https://geoscientist.online/sections/viewpoint/geoscience-ai... Paul Cleverley raises concerns about big-data artificial intelligence projects in the geosciences Geologists raise concerns over possible censorship and bias in Chinese chatbot (24 June 2024) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/24/geologists-censorship-bias-chinese-chatbot-geogpt https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/24/g... Tests on Qwen, part of GeoGPT’s underlying AI, reveal geoscience-related questions can produce answers that appear to be influenced by narratives set by the Chinese Communist party. For example, when asked how many people have died in a mining operation in Ghana run by the Shaanxi Mining Company, Qwen says: “I’m unable to provide current or specific information about events, including mining accidents, as my knowledge is based on data up until 2021 and I don’t have real-time access to news updates.” The same question posed to ChatGPT, the chatbot developed by the US company OpenAI, produces the answer: “The Shaanxi Mining Company in Ghana has experienced multiple fatal incidents, resulting in a total of 61 deaths since 2013. This includes a significant explosion in January 2019 that alone claimed 16 lives. ” Eight days ago on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773876 (1 comment | 2 points)

droopyEyelids 2y ago
Are miner deaths relevant to a geology-focused tool? The example of its use was to explain the fossil record.
- defrost 2y ago
  Not relevant to surface geochemistry results, no. Not relevant to airbone geophysics results, no. Not relevant to to drill exploration sampling results, no. Not relevant to Technical | Economic Feasibility studies, no. Not relevant to mining environmental impact studies, no; although deaths, injury and illness in surrounding populations is. Relevant to ongoing minesite safety records and operations, yes. It's a question of scope; a geoscience aware AI that can answer questions about resource availibity, resource extraction and associated risks, costs and impacts that includes the kind of information found in, say, https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/metals-mining https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/met... would be expected to aware of mining deaths. Just as people want to be aware of nuclear risks for power and deaths in lithium processing from accidents and associated radioactive waste. It's being touted as a Geoscience tool, not just a chatty geology database.

bsenftner 2y ago

I remember pleas and slogans of "data wants to be free!" and a generalized public attitude of down with all copyrights and patents. Remember Napster? I find it hard to not think the attitude now is merely the public echoing what "big journalism" is telling them to parrot. I'm so disillusioned.

atrus 2y ago
Most of the issues that people have with it are a lack of attribution and using this freely scraped data to turn a profit.
- zaptrem 2y ago
  I'm sure none of these people use freely available internet data as part of their jobs (i.e., for a profit), right? More specific to this situation, is there really much profit in geology chatbots?
thatguy0900 2y ago
Well the Ai companies certainly believe data wants to be free. To them, at least. Probably not to anyone else
mrbombastic 2y ago
I’m mostly with you, I am still of that camp and I hope if we have some amazing AI tooling coming that makes humanity more efficient that we don’t get stopped by copyright of all things. That said I am irked when the scraping doesn’t respect copyright but then effort is made to protect the IP of the resulting models.

azinman2 2y ago

Although Hazen understands the wariness about China’s involvement, “I keep my eyes open all the time,” he says. “I sense no agenda whatsoever.” I’m sure they’re spending municipal money, cutting deals with Springer, and working with Alibaba out of the goodness of their hearts because they all care so much about humanity’s understanding of geoscience.

sinuhe69 2y ago

Don’t understand why they didn’t use an open source models to develop the chat bot? While the questions about copyrights and permissions remain unsolved, there is agreeable more transparency and no state control. Why did they have to use a propriety Chinese model? Just because the programmer is Chinese and they didn’t have any alternative?

rfoo 2y ago
QWen is an open source model. And for a while it was the top non-English open source model. Meanwhile, it is also a Chinese model.
itishappy 2y ago
> Why did they have to use a propriety Chinese model? Just because the programmer is Chinese and they didn’t have any alternative? ??? > It is being developed by Jian Wang, chief technology officer of e-commerce giant Alibaba. Built on Qwen, Alibaba’s own chatbot... https://github.com/QwenLM/Qwen2 https://github.com/QwenLM/Qwen2 https://huggingface.co/Qwen https://huggingface.co/Qwen

mitjam 2y ago

Does anybody know if there are published papers explaining this? I found these two which might be related but not actually about the same thing: GeoGPT: Understanding and Processing Geospatial Tasks through An Autonomous GPT (https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07930 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07930): This does not involve fine-tuning but tool use and prompting for reasoning. BB-GeoGPT: A Framework for Learning a Large Language Model for Geographic Information Science (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381630694_BB-GeoGPT_A_framework_for_learning_a_large_language_model_for_geographic_information_science https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381630694_BB-GeoGPT...): This involves fine-tuning but of smaller models (Llama-2-7b) - the BB stands for "baby".

chucke1992 2y ago

Wasn't it the same with other AIs? Like with saw that with Gemini, copilot etc. where they was not willing to report on certain stuff or provide the response properly.

sim7c00 2y ago

propaganda laden gossip article. I don't get why people write in this light.. You can read it from this sentence: " A year earlier, Irina Artemieva, who is Russian born but left the country decades ago, had taken over as president." 'but left the country decades ago' - what a useless piece of detail showing what is the intent of really writing this. If it was just an interesting/honest note to give about the person, the word 'but' would not be used..

eunos 2y ago

Huh, the article describes more of a power struggle inside the EGU than the AI itself.

BeFlatXIII 2y ago

Good. Information deserves to be free.