Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

wordholes t1_jed6wd9 wrote

Oh my god they're using approximate data from a probabilistic model to train another even more approximate probabilistic model.

What level of generational loss is this??

34

autotldr t1_jed7kdh wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 54%. (I'm a bot)

> The Information's report also contains the potentially staggering thirdhand allegation that Google stooped so low as to train Bard using data from OpenAI's ChatGPT, scraped from a website called ShareGPT. A former Google AI researcher reportedly spoke out against using that data, according to the publication.

> According to The Information's reporting, a Google AI engineer named Jacob Devlin left Google to immediately join its rival OpenAI after attempting to warn Google not to use that ChatGPT data because it would violate OpenAI's terms of service, and that its answers would look too similar.

> Update March 30th, 2:02PM ET: Google would not answer a follow-up question about whether it had previously used ChatGPT data form Bard, only that Bard "Isn't trained on data from ChatGPT or ShareGPT.".

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Google^#1 data^#2 Bard^#3 ChatGPT^#4 train^#5

7

z57 t1_jedfhgf wrote

Replying to wordholes (#2,514,875)

Wasn't Stanfords Alpaca trained using GPT?

Yes I think it was: Researchers train a language model from Meta with text generated by OpenAI's GPT-3.5 for less than $600

9

clyro_b t1_jedps82 wrote

Ha that's funny, Google suspended my account last week from scraping data from Google

6

Orqee t1_jedu7j1 wrote

We totally didn’t, also whaaaaaat?

3

frosthowler t1_jee0y0f wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,521,385)

The terms of service doesn't matter in the context of anti-competitive practices; if scraping becomes a key requirement for the development of certain services, Google can undercut all of its competitors by using its own system.

This may seem 'fair game' to you, but it's not, it's anti-competitive, and for the same reason the Supreme Court ruled against Microsoft with regards to the competitive advantage it had with Internet Explorer before Firefox and Chrome came around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

And that wasn't about forbidding--that was about merely inconveniencing.

Edit: It says it was 'partially overturned', that doesn't refer to the ruling that Microsoft was doing something illegal, it was referring to the order to break up Microsoft into two companies. That part only was overruled.

The landmark ruling resulted in the ability to develop browsers like Firefox and Chrome through Microsoft being forced to open and document its APIs, which crushed Internet Explorer.

3

ishmal t1_jee8dwc wrote

I can totally see one or more developers doing somthing like this if they need to develop a feature and the rest of Bard isn't ready yet. They test and verify their feature, add it to Bard, then leave the model behind. So the model would only be used for development and would never be seen by end users.

0