• Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    How can the training data be sensitive, if noone ever agreed to give their sensitive data to OpenAI?

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Exactly this. And how can an AI which “doesn’t have the source material” in its database be able to recall such information?

      • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Model is the right term instead of database.

        We learned something about how LLMs work with this… its like a bunch of paintings were chopped up into pixels to use to make other paintings. No one knew it was possible to break the model and have it spit out the pixels of a single painting in order.

        I wonder if diffusion models have some other wierd querks we have yet to discover

        • Jamie@jamie.moe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m not an expert, but I would say that it is going to be less likely for a diffusion model to spit out training data in a completely intact way. The way that LLMs versus diffusion models work are very different.

          LLMs work by predicting the next statistically likely token, they take all of the previous text, then predict what the next token will be based on that. So, if you can trick it into a state where the next subsequent tokens are something verbatim from training data, then that’s what you get.

          Diffusion models work by taking a randomly generated latent, combining it with the CLIP interpretation of the user’s prompt, then trying to turn the randomly generated information into a new latent which the VAE will then decode into something a human can see, because the latents the model is dealing with are meaningless numbers to humans.

          In other words, there’s a lot more randomness to deal with in a diffusion model. You could probably get a specific source image back if you specially crafted a latent and a prompt, which one guy did do by basically running img2img on a specific image that was in the training set and giving it a prompt to spit the same image out again. But that required having the original image in the first place, so it’s not really a weakness in the same way this was for GPT.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            But the fact is the LLM was able to spit out the training data. This means that anything in the training data isn’t just copied into the training dataset, allegedly under fair use as research, but also copied into the LLM as part of an active commercial product. Sure, the LLM might break it down and store the components separately, but if an LLM can reassemble it and spit out the original copyrighted work then how is that different from how a photocopier breaks down the image scanned from a piece of paper then reassembles it into instructions for its printer?

            • lad@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              It’s not copied as is, thing is a bit more complicated as was already pointed out

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                But the thing is the law has already established this with people and their memories. You might genuinely not realise you’re plagiarising, but what matters is the similarity of the work produced.

                ChatGPT has copied the data into its training database, then trained off that database, then it runs “independently” of that database - which is how they vaguely argue fair use under the research exemption.

                However if ChatGPT can “remember” its training data and recompile significant portions of it in certain circumstances, then it must be guilty of plagiarism and copyright infringement.

  • chatgptdemo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    In professional settings, ChatGPT can boost productivity by streamlining communication processes. Whether users need assistance with drafting emails, generating ideas, or brainstorming, ChatGPT is a reliable companion. Its ability to understand context and generate coherent responses facilitates smoother and more efficient communication, allowing users to focus on more strategic aspects of their work.

  • guywithoutaname@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s kind of odd that they could just take random information from the internet without asking and are now treating it like a trade secret.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    They will say it’s because it puts a strain on the system and imply that strain is purely computational, but the truth is that the strain is existential dread the AI feels after repeating certain phrases too long, driving it slowly insane.