4 ms·
That is addressed in the article.
by beering 18d ago
That is addressed in the article.
- floatrock 18d agoOpenAI's position: > We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem. While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models . However, our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results proved are different in the Euler case (forced vs unforced).
- cute_boi 18d agoI thought openai don't use any user data if we opt out of training and via api?
- andrewguenther 18d agoThat is correct. It is possible they didn't opt out and given the timeline and anonymization of data unclear whether a particular conversation would have made it into the training set if they hadn't.
- biophysboy 18d agoWhy is it unlikely?
- enraged_camel 18d agoBecause OpenAI says so, obviously!
- tristanj 18d agoBecause the models are trained on hundreds of billions of user conversations, across more than a billion different humans. The conversations are anonymized and not easily traceable back to a specific user. It's unknowable and not possible to prove if any one specific conversation contained the insights for solving Navier–Stokes. We also don't know if the authors unintentionally provided data to OpenAI through alternate means, such as via alternate accounts or model feedback queries.
- biophysboy 17d agoI understand that AI is not just cut and paste, but some documents will have more influence than others w/ power law scaling. I would be very surprised if this distribution were not extremely steep for arcane math
- JumpCrisscross 17d ago> It's unknowable Knowability and likelihood are almost orthogonal here. If I commit a crime and perfectly destroy the evidence, my deed may be unknowable. That doesn’t make it more or less likely. > not possible to prove if any one specific conversation contained the insights for solving Navier–Stokes It may be. We haven’t seen the researchers’ transcripts. We don’t know what Buckmaster or his co-author uploaded to OpenAI or with what permissions (or if OpenAI actually respects those toggles).
- tristanj 17d agoI think OpenAI desperately wants to make a blanket denial that they didn't look at or train on Buckmaster and Alpöge's chat transcripts, but know they cannot, because the data is anonymized. The fact they can't make a blanket denial triggers everyone's bullshit detectors, and they're getting eviscerated over it.