These companies are sitting on a never-ending stream of human created data. What do you think happens to your conversations or other interactions with AI? Quality might be a bit sus though.
I'd imagine it's really low quality data. Most or all of my conversations with an LLM are questions or telling it to do something, with varying levels of specificity
I'm not sure what they'd get from training on that
> If human response is "That's BS", "fuck off", or something similar, mark as bad assistant message.
Marking is not a trivial task though. Use some AI system to mark it and you get a 99.something% filter maybe but whatever that remainder is leaks through. Over time your filter may get worse as a result.
I'm in the process of messing around with a new distro where things are not quite what I am used to, and the usual suspects have been pretty helpful there... except for when they just make shit up
Grok is the only one that swore back at me. I kinda liked that. The others are way too polite, "Artificial Intelligence? Artificial Canadians, more like", my uni-going kid joked.
Every time you tell it to do something, it does, and you don't correct it that's a weakly positive signal. If you tell it to do it again with further clarification, that's also a signal. Sometime I feel like I am giving them free work when chatting.. I guess the trade is sort of equitable. Answers in exchange for data..
I sometimes wonder if they're vulnerable to a coordinated effort of deliberately upvoting shit assistant turns and praising in the next user turn - how much does that actually contribute to future training, if at all?
I had a very basic React question about useState while porting some vanilla code last week which all models of all stripes I've tried it on have been confidently and completely incorrect about, up to stating the code absolutely will not work, even when I take a turn to assert that I ran it and it does, so there's plenty of shit in there already.
Most of the human-created data is also very low quality. But it's also limited in other ways, such as how a lot of so-called high-quality data online is typically the finished answer to a question, with no serialization of the thought process that lead to that answer.
I think he was referring not to finished content, but to the prompts humans put in when using chatbots. The prompts would show some of the thought process, but then they won't really show the answer (as that's output by the chatbot and not the human prompting it).
You can't. That appears to be a dark pattern by OAI, most likely designed to deceive you into uploading your sensitive material unaware that it's being trained on.
The real process involves submitting a request on another one of OpenAI's sites and awaiting a confirmation email (either their privacy or platform site).
Feel deceived and violated? Yeah, you, me and millions of other people, welcome to the club.
True. Arguably it's trust with teeth, though the bite must be hard enough.
Apple - alleged Siri eavesdropping: $95M [0]
LinkedIn - alleged unauthorized ai training on private messages: ?? [1]
Google - alleged unlawful data collection in Texas: $1.4B [2]
