3 ms·
For the life of me I will never understand the thought process that leads you to say "we don't really know who developed this LLM but I'm going to feed all of m
by bandrami 5mo ago
For the life of me I will never understand the thought process that leads you to say "we don't really know who developed this LLM but I'm going to feed all of my business's data to it"
- ddalex 5mo agowhat can it do ? it's just a big set of numbers, if you trust the host that's good enough
- what266262 5mo agoIf you are ok with everything being fed into it being stored forever I guess it’s no problem. I don’t see how you trust them if you don’t know them.
- Dylan16807 5mo agoWho is "them" here? The developers and the hosts are not the same.
- bandrami 5mo ago(And either one is a threat vector)
- ddalex 5mo agowhere would it be stored ? it's just a big set of numbers.
- Mashimo 5mo agoIf you Code open source projects anyway, might give it a spin.
- est 5mo ago> I'm going to feed all of my business's data to it Your business data is probably worthless, even considered harmful for the pretrain corpus. Your interactions and decision making process are most valuable parts of the whole business.
- bandrami 5mo agoI assure you my business's data is not remotely worthless which is why there are pretty strict laws and regulations about what we can do with it
- TZubiri 5mo ago>Your business data is probably worthless please tell me you are not in charge of the data of any business I'm a client of
- est 5mo agoto clarify, probably worthless to AI vendors, but might be useful for third-parties.
- TZubiri 5mo agoThird parties that can be clients of the AI vendor...
- selcuka 5mo agoIf it's worthless to AI vendors, they won't include it in the training corpus, so third parties won't have access to it.
- estearum 5mo agoThey're alluding to something more like espionage of just selling the interesting stuff you put in the text box.
- TZubiri 5mo agoWow I thought this was quite obvious, apparently not, so I'll explain. Llm provider sells usage of their model. You use it to write code. Other clients use it to write code as well. If the llm provider trains with user data, then the usage benefits other users. If you pay the company to generate code,then by definition it is useful, and highly likely that other customers care about it. Replace writing code with anything, a lawyer, a psychologist, a confessional. The IO is inherently useful to users of the same category. That is to say nothing of adversarial use, that is, being useful because a counterparty might find it useful, so an attacker might find common code patterns, a lawyer might see what the opposition might be advised, a boy might see what a girl asks or gets advised, etc.. If this sounds too complex to you, just think of training on data as exfiltration with added steps, because that's what it is
- kirtivr 5mo agoYou don't need to know who developed the LLM - whether it was Google or OpenAI. What you need to know is who is the provider for the LLM, and whether their endpoints are zero data retention enabled and opted out of training. OpenRouter gives you an easy way to control this.
- koiueo 5mo agoHow can openrouter control what LLM provider does with your data on their side?
- kirtivr 5mo agoOpenRouter and the provider sign a contract clearly specifying how input data is to be handled. It's the same way we trust OpenAI to not train on our data if we've opted out although there is no control on whether they can retain the data indefinitely.
- lmf4lol 5mo agoI really dont want to be cynic but those guys gave a flying f””” about copyright while scraping the whole internet. How can I ever trust them to respect the oot-out setting. I cant. Thieves be thieves. And even if they dont train on the data. Who guarantees us, they dont let another AI model analyse all the data, exfiltrating all kinds of intelligence and using it? I only can imagine what OpenAI and Anthropic know….
- astrange 5mo agoScraping the internet isn't a copyright violation. Using it for LLM training is much more transformative than Google and Internet Archive, which are legal.
- alfiedotwtf 5mo agoTo be honest, this is the first time someone has spelt it out in a nicely succinct paragraph. And just like that, I totally agree with you
- WithinReason 5mo agoIt's from Tencent, says it in the article: https://hy.tencent.com/research/hy3 https://hy.tencent.com/research/hy3
- bandrami 5mo agoRight but Tencent is a massive half-state-controlled holding company so that's not really helpful.
- minraws 5mo agoOpenAI & Anthropic are deeply in bed with US govt, and they need US govt approval before model releases, and all US Companies under various acts need to share data with the govt. I mean sure there are investors and a little more open-ness, but with the example of Mythos we don't even know if public will get access to the "good" stuff because it's too dangerous. If your only opinion on trusting these companies more than one based in China is, they are Chinese then good luck, all the best.
- bandrami 5mo agoWell, I mean, just as a legal question I'm not allowed to use Chinese software at work, so yeah that's kind of definitive for me
- nl 5mo ago> and they need US govt approval before model releases This isn't the case (yet).
- irthomasthomas 5mo agoIt is for models trained with 10^26 flops. Anthropic confirmed Mythos was less than this. You could estimate the upper bound on model size from this.
- nl 5mo ago
- st3fan 5mo agoHow do you “feed data into a model” ? Use the correct terminology and concepts please. It is important.