5 ms·

First of all, Putnam is not in the test data, at least I haven't seen OpenAI claiming that publicly. Secondly, removing it from internet data is not 100% accura

First of all, Putnam is not in the test data, at least I haven't seen OpenAI claiming that publicly. Secondly, removing it from internet data is not 100% accurate. There are translations of the problems and solutions or references and direct match is not enough. MMLU and test set benchmarks show more resilience though in some previous research.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rst 2y ago
OpenAI is extremely cagey about what's in their test data set generally, but absent more specific info, they're widely assumed to be grabbing whatever they can. (Notably including copyrighted information used without explicit authorization -- I'll take no position on legal issues in the New York Times's lawsuit against OpenAI, but at the very least, getting their models to regurgitate NYT articles verbatim demonstrates pretty clearly that those articles are in the training set.)
fn-mote 2y ago
Let’s think about this. > Putnam is not in the test data, at least I haven't seen OpenAI claiming that publicly What exactly is the source of your belief that the Putnam would not be in the test data? Didn’t they train on everything they could get their hands on?
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  do you understand the difference between test data and train data? just reread this thread of comments
  - YetAnotherNick 2y ago
    I don't know why I and you are getting downvoted. Sometimes, HN crowd is just unhinged against AI.
    - boroboro4 2y ago
      These models are trained in two steps: training base model and then uptraining it. First step includes as much data as possible, everything company can find. For Llama models it's 15T tokens, which is ~40 TB of data. No-one really puts an effort on splitting this data into train/test/eval (and it's not very achievable either). It's just as much data as possible. So it's like 99.9999999% wrong to assume something public isn't on the train set, such as Putnam problems in this case. This is about it.
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
        right, but where did someone assume it wasn’t in the train set? they just said it wasn’t in the test set
        boroboro4 2y ago
        What test set is being talked about here? Why does it matter what’s on this set?
        whimsicalism 2y ago
        the point is that putnam was never a test/benchmark being used by OpenAI or anyone else, so there is no smoking gun if you find putnam on the train set nor is it cheating or nefarious because nobody ever claimed otherwise. this whole notion of putnam as test being trained on is a fully invented grievance read the entire thread in this context
        boroboro4 2y ago
        I've read the thread and I think it's not very coherent overall, I also not sure if we disagree =) I agree that having putnam problems on OpenAI training set is not a smoking gun, however it's (almost) certain they are on training set, and having them would affect performance of the model on them too. Hence research like this is important, since it shows that observed behavior of the models is memoization to large extent, and not necessarily generalization we would like it to be.
whimsicalism 2y ago
funny that nobody replying to you seems to even know what a test set is. i always overestimate the depth of ML conversation you can have on HN
chvid 2y ago
It is on the open internet - questions and suggested solutions: https://kskedlaya.org/putnam-archive/ https://kskedlaya.org/putnam-archive/ I would expect all llms to be trained on it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rst 2y ago

OpenAI is extremely cagey about what's in their test data set generally, but absent more specific info, they're widely assumed to be grabbing whatever they can. (Notably including copyrighted information used without explicit authorization -- I'll take no position on legal issues in the New York Times's lawsuit against OpenAI, but at the very least, getting their models to regurgitate NYT articles verbatim demonstrates pretty clearly that those articles are in the training set.)

fn-mote 2y ago

Let’s think about this. > Putnam is not in the test data, at least I haven't seen OpenAI claiming that publicly What exactly is the source of your belief that the Putnam would not be in the test data? Didn’t they train on everything they could get their hands on?

whimsicalism 2y ago
do you understand the difference between test data and train data? just reread this thread of comments
- YetAnotherNick 2y ago
  I don't know why I and you are getting downvoted. Sometimes, HN crowd is just unhinged against AI.
  - boroboro4 2y ago
    These models are trained in two steps: training base model and then uptraining it. First step includes as much data as possible, everything company can find. For Llama models it's 15T tokens, which is ~40 TB of data. No-one really puts an effort on splitting this data into train/test/eval (and it's not very achievable either). It's just as much data as possible. So it's like 99.9999999% wrong to assume something public isn't on the train set, such as Putnam problems in this case. This is about it.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      right, but where did someone assume it wasn’t in the train set? they just said it wasn’t in the test set
      - boroboro4 2y ago
        What test set is being talked about here? Why does it matter what’s on this set?
        whimsicalism 2y ago
        the point is that putnam was never a test/benchmark being used by OpenAI or anyone else, so there is no smoking gun if you find putnam on the train set nor is it cheating or nefarious because nobody ever claimed otherwise. this whole notion of putnam as test being trained on is a fully invented grievance read the entire thread in this context
        boroboro4 2y ago
        I've read the thread and I think it's not very coherent overall, I also not sure if we disagree =) I agree that having putnam problems on OpenAI training set is not a smoking gun, however it's (almost) certain they are on training set, and having them would affect performance of the model on them too. Hence research like this is important, since it shows that observed behavior of the models is memoization to large extent, and not necessarily generalization we would like it to be.

whimsicalism 2y ago

funny that nobody replying to you seems to even know what a test set is. i always overestimate the depth of ML conversation you can have on HN

chvid 2y ago

It is on the open internet - questions and suggested solutions: https://kskedlaya.org/putnam-archive/ https://kskedlaya.org/putnam-archive/ I would expect all llms to be trained on it.