3 ms·

They've been caught in the past getting benchmark data under the table, if they got caught once they're probably doing it even more

• refulgentis 2y ago
  No, they haven't.
  • freehorse 2y ago
    They actually have [0]. They were revealed to have had access to the (majority of the) frontierMath problemset while everybody thought the problemset was confidential, and published benchmarks for their o3 models on the presumption that they didn't. I mean one is free to trust their "verbal agreement" that they did not train their models on that, but access they did have and it was not revealed until much later. [0] https://the-decoder.com/openai-quietly-funded-independent-math-benchmark-before-setting-record-with-o3/ https://the-decoder.com/openai-quietly-funded-independent-ma...
    • brookst 2y ago
      Curious you left out Frontier Math’s statement that they provided 300 questions plus answers, and another holdback set of 50 questions without answers, to allay this concern. [0] We can assume they’re lying too but at some point “everyone’s bad because they’re lying, which we know because they’re bad” gets a little tired. 0. https://epoch.ai/blog/openai-and-frontiermath https://epoch.ai/blog/openai-and-frontiermath
      • freehorse 2y ago
        1. I said the majority of the problems, and the article I linked also mentioned this. Nothing “curious” really, but if you thought this additional source adds sth more, thanks for adding it here. 2. We know that “open”ai is bad, for many reasons, but this is irrelevant. I want processes themselves to not depend on the goodwill of a corporation to give intended results. I do not trust benchmarks that first presented themselves secret and then revealed they were not, regardless if the product benchmarked was from a company I otherwise trust or not.
        • brookst 2y ago
          Fair enough. It’s hard for me to imagine being so offended as the way they screwed up disclosure that I’d reject empirical data, but I get that it’s a touchy subject.
          • 542354234235 2y ago
            When the data is secret and unavailable to the company before the test, it doesn’t rely on me trusting the company. When the data is not secret and is available to the company, I have to trust that the company did not use that prior knowledge to their advantage. When the company lies and says it did not have access, then later admits that it did have access, is means the data is less trustworthy from my outsider perspective. I don’t think “offense” is a factor at all. If a scientific paper comes out with “empirical data”, I will still look at the conflicts of interest section. If there are no conflicts of interest listed, but then it is found out that there are multiple conflicts of interest, but the authors promise that while they did not disclose them, they also did not affect the paper, I would be more skeptical. I am not “offended”. I am not “rejecting” the data, but I am taking those factors into account when determining how confident I can be in the validity of the data.
            • refulgentis 2y ago
              > When the company lies and says it did not have access, then later admits that it did have access, is means the data is less trustworthy from my outsider perspective. This isn't what happened? I must be missing something. AFAIK: The FrontierMath people self-reported they had a shared folder the OpenAI people had access to that had a subset of some questions. No one denied anything, no one lied about anything, no one said they didn't have access. There was no data obtained under the table. The motte is "they had data for this one benchmark" The bailey is "they got data under the table"
    • anoncareer0212 2y ago
      Motte: "They got caught getting benchmark data under the table" Bailey: "one is free to trust their "verbal agreement" that they did not train their models on that, but access they did have." Sigh.
      • codeflo 2y ago
        > Motte: "They got caught getting benchmark data under the table" > Bailey: "one is free to trust their "verbal agreement" that they did not train their models on that, but access they did have." 1. You’re confusing motte and bailey. 2. Those statements are logically identical.
        • anoncareer0212 2y ago
          You're right, upon reflection, it seems there might be some misunderstandings here: Motte and Bailey refers to an argumentative tactic where someone switches between an easily defensible ("motte") position and a less defensible but more ambitious ("bailey") position. My example should have been: - Motte (defensible): "They had access to benchmark data (which isn't disputed)." - Bailey (less defensible): "They actually trained their model using the benchmark data." The statements you've provided: "They got caught getting benchmark data under the table" (suggesting improper access) "One is free to trust their 'verbal agreement' that they did not train their models on that, but access they did have." These two statements are similar but not logically identical. One explicitly suggests improper or secretive access ("under the table"), while the other acknowledges access openly. So, rather than being logically identical, the difference is subtle but meaningful. One emphasizes improper access (a stronger claim), while the other points only to possession or access, a more easily defensible claim.
          • freehorse 2y ago
            Is this LLM? It was not public until later, and it was actually revealed first by others. So the statements seem identical to me.
            • 2y ago