17 ms·
Maybe, but: > He told the BBC of his shock when he found what it had done, given his research was not published so could not have been found by the AI system i
by vintagedave 2y ago
Maybe, but:
> He told the BBC of his shock when he found what it had done, given his research was not published so could not have been found by the AI system in the public domain.
and,
> Critically, this hypothesis was unique to the research team and had not been published anywhere else. Nobody in the team had shared their findings.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jgalt212 2y agoI guess, but pretty much every LLM is trained with data outside the public domain--whether they admit to it, or not.
- mossTechnician 2y agoSince a Google product output the result, it had access to the same knowledge base as Google itself - Search, Scholar, etc. And use of copyrighted data for research purposes has always been, as far as I know, considered fair use in AI training. Unfortunately, even if we wanted to, it might be impossible to attribute this success to the authors that it built upon.
- monkeydreams 2y ago> considered fair use in AI training By AI trainers, if not by the authors whose works were encoded.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- fsckboy 2y ago>outside the public domain public domain is a legal term meaning something like "free from copyright or license restrictions" I believe in this thread people mean not that but "published and likely part of the training corpus"
- furyofantares 2y agoRight, the actual result they asked about was not published. But do a search for the author, they indeed have published loads of related stuff in the last decade even if not that actual result and even if not directly pointing at it.