3 ms·

> You can replicate the architectural innovations, and try them for yourself with your own dataset. That's not related to my comment. My comment was pointing o

> You can replicate the architectural innovations, and try them for yourself with your own dataset. That's not related to my comment. My comment was pointing out that you can't verify something that wasn't published. You have no idea what fraction of their techniques they're not publishing, and how much they contribute to their model performance, because you cannot replicate the models, because they don't publish their training data. > and the reason the Chinese are not sharing data are no more nefarious than why the American companies are not sharing This is moving the goalposts. Your claim was that "The Chinese have actually been very open about training", which is false, as discussed. Nobody ever claimed that the American labs were open.

HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago
> You have no idea what fraction of their techniques they're not publishing, and how much they contribute to their model performance, because you cannot replicate the models, because they don't publish their training data. Why would you be concerned about THEIR model performance ?! Surely if you are an ML researcher and read about a new technique, you are interested in how YOU may be able to use it. If you are Ilya Sutskever sitting at OpenAI in 2017, and happen upon Google's "attention" (Transformer architecture) paper, then what you do is go and implement it for yourself, get yourself some training data, and try it. What you are NOT going to do is whine about not being given their source code, or their training data, or their training harness, or a dump of Google's corporate secrets. You take the research that has been shared and evaluate it for yourself.
- throw10920 2mo ago
  This doesn't have anything to do with Google or OpenAI. I'm not Ilya Sutskever and it's not 2017, either. I'm not "whining" about anything. You made the claim "The Chinese have actually been very open about training" and I showed that that was false. That's all that there is to it.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago
    The rest of the word is reading Chinese published research and benefiting from it. Apparently you are unaware of it and not benefiting from it. Oh well.

HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago

> You have no idea what fraction of their techniques they're not publishing, and how much they contribute to their model performance, because you cannot replicate the models, because they don't publish their training data. Why would you be concerned about THEIR model performance ?! Surely if you are an ML researcher and read about a new technique, you are interested in how YOU may be able to use it. If you are Ilya Sutskever sitting at OpenAI in 2017, and happen upon Google's "attention" (Transformer architecture) paper, then what you do is go and implement it for yourself, get yourself some training data, and try it. What you are NOT going to do is whine about not being given their source code, or their training data, or their training harness, or a dump of Google's corporate secrets. You take the research that has been shared and evaluate it for yourself.

throw10920 2mo ago
This doesn't have anything to do with Google or OpenAI. I'm not Ilya Sutskever and it's not 2017, either. I'm not "whining" about anything. You made the claim "The Chinese have actually been very open about training" and I showed that that was false. That's all that there is to it.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago
  The rest of the word is reading Chinese published research and benefiting from it. Apparently you are unaware of it and not benefiting from it. Oh well.