For me, I'm pretty sure it's related to having just awful seasonal allergies as a child - I'd quite often get stuffed up and have an unfortunate amount of pressure in my sinuses and ears. So then I'd pinch my nose and try to adjust it, eventually realizing I didn't need to pinch my nose.
On one side, yes we don't have hard evidence that intentional plagiarism is exactly what happened.
On the other side, the lack of evidence is pretty damning. Only OpenAI can try to prove that they came by these results legitimately, and the case they're making is quite weak. They could make public metadata about what their model was trained on and whether it did train on the conversations in question; they have not. TBQH I read it as even they don't know.
And regardless of whether the result is legitimately obtained by their model, they've not at all conducted themselves well throughout this story. They set out to scoop researchers based on a rumor. They threatened to ruin a mathematicians career. They put up a paper that deliberately doesn't cite the most relevant research, despite building directly on it. No matter how you look at it, OpenAI has and should lose any standing they had in the research community.
That it was a dick move, I think there is no doubt about that. OpenAI wanted to scoop Anthropic, and the two guys working on the problem got caught in the crossfire.
Both OpenAI and the researchers know if the sessions in questions were subject to data sharing. Why neither the scientists nor OpenAI is clear about that is weird - it would seem at least one party has the incentive to report that. But even if their sessions were in training data sets its hard to tell whether it influenced the outcome. Those models are big, but are they big enough to preserve subtle, niche techniques enough to draw from them while solving a related problem? Probably nobody knows.
Actually no, the lack of evidence can be readily fixed by the researchers simply disclosing the pertinent parts of their notes and/or chats. The discovery has been scooped, so I don't see any value in keeping them private anymore. Then everybody can see how related the models' and the researchers' works are.
If it's cloud compute that would be otherwise unused, the business is not paying for the electricity or wear. And they specifically put it in terms of marginal cost - Yeah there'd be an improvement from reselling this idle compute instead, but just using the cycles that would otherwise have been wasted doesn't change the status quo.
In the sense that the company paying to reserve a certain quantity of computer time isn't the owner or operator of the machines providing it, and has paid for that time by the hour, or something?
"conspiracy theory" specifically means choosing the crazy explanation while more reasonable explanations exist. If you say the explanation is NOT crazy because it deserves investigation then it's automatically not a conspiracy theory.
"choosing" is the keyword here. You have to reason probabilistically. There was a point at which lot of people would have put 100% or 99% confidence that covid came from a lab leak. That's the conspiracy theory side.
A lot of more reasonable people would have put 1% or 5% confidence on covid coming from a lab leak, saying roughly "It's unlikely, but hard to rule out because China isn't being transparent". And then ask for more investigation, which is exactly what happened.
So at no point was it rationally worth a 99% probability estimate, but it was worth investigation.
What validity do you put on earth being flat? So that's the validity some people put on covid lab leak theory. You may be surprised.
Calling something a conspiracy theory means rejecting its validity for investigation out of hand. Maybe you don't use it like that but that's how most people apparently use it.
> There was a point at which lot of people would have put 100% or 99% confidence that covid came from a lab leak
Why was? Now it is a point at which a lot of people put 100% confidence that covid came from a lab leak. And a lot of other people put 100% confidence that it was Wuhan market bat. And that's the problem I tried to express.
Yeah, it was called Openhost for a while before changing to Cloud in a Bottle. Either filename works.
It proxies requests from the user to installed apps, and adds a header 'is-owner'. Apps have to be built to respect that header - some apps do this by running their own little proxy/sidecar that will detect that header and inject saved credentials.
For me, I'm pretty sure it's related to having just awful seasonal allergies as a child - I'd quite often get stuffed up and have an unfortunate amount of pressure in my sinuses and ears. So then I'd pinch my nose and try to adjust it, eventually realizing I didn't need to pinch my nose.
reply