In order for this to be the strong evidence everyone also has to believe that the setting is absolutely true. That some logging from some piece of the system could not also leak the prompt information in such a way that it could have been included as training data. Perhaps the design of how data is collected for the training dataset is so rigorous as to make this a practical impossibility. But, it's asking a lot without sufficient detail to completely exclude from possibility that one setting is all that could possibly have been absolutely load bearing in deciding if the other researcher's active efforts meaningfully contaminated the internal model.
At least, as an ignorant outsider, that's how it seems to me.
No evidence until there's an answer to the question of if prompt data from the other researchers was used to train the internal model.
I think the reasonable ethical question to consider when a company has an incentive to prove its value, and learns of the state of the art of a flashy research topic being close to a solution, and then throws loads of resources at trying to solve it first. I agree that "AI" didn't "take" but it's not an incomprehensible shortcut of criticism of the aforementioned behavior, not that precision should be avoided here.
Ok so if no plagarism has occured here in any sense then there's no discussion here?
I agree though if they did plagarism it's really really bad for OpenAI. They would instantly have evaporated all remaining good will to gloat over a stolen discovery.
I think there's still an ethical question of a business trying to scoop a researcher solely because the business learned of promising progress. It's not a very big leap to consider "multiple discovery" (a la calculus by Leibniz and Newton) and chance that the model that is good at math proofs might have enough ambient context to work faster from a similar knowledge base on the problem for which promising progress was discovered. I think that's not nice at the very least. Surely the above-board way to approach that is "hey researcher, we learned, indirectly, that you might have made significant progress on flashy research topic and would like the chance to throw our vast computational resources in to try to help work toward the conclusion of that effort." But, maybe that's asking too much?
I think there's an important part which is that the nature of the beast implies there's effectively zero way to do that.
They have no idea what context, triggering this pathway, was from this guys reddit post 4 years ago.
I also assume that if any AI lab could actually do that it'd be an instant pissing context over who gives who credit the mostest. "This software engineer wrote a sick sorting algorthm everyone now uses, thank you random dude for that training contribution"
Maybe we will in the future, maybe we'll learn that the solution to this prize is from 3 peoples schizo rant on reddit a decade ago. Would be kinda sick actually.
That's interesting. Some of the fandom wikis are really high quality (memory-alpha, starwars) and were my introduction to the service. I suppose I appreciate that someone paying for the hosting and running the wiki has to be paid for somehow. And this kind of consolidation makes it worse if the underlying provider fails, but ideally avoids that so individually hosted instances don't more silently disappear. It makes me wonder about the most reasonable balance.
The user contributions may be high-quality but the site they are on is so low quality that I find the information to be of lower quality. I don’t care how well filled out it is: if the site is bad then the information is not worth my time.
This exactly. Surely some sort of IoT mesh networking will allow exfiltration of data even without having configured your own device.
I'm hopeful that there will be sufficient distrust that "jailbreaking" or "rooting" TV controller boards will be turnkey enough to move to something like OpenWrt or GrapheneOS but for TVs.
That is a reasonable push back. The simple answer is a lack of present day need given my TV is a very old Samsung without any need.
I suppose I also assume someone with Android ROM development experience is better positioned to take up organizing such a project as an overall smaller effort, there by being faster and more efficient. Other real life constraints also seem to suggest not pursuing this type of thing in lieu of other things I should be pursuing and already procrastinate. But, here there be dragons, or at the very least a can of worms.
I'll bet there is already a manufacturer whose TVs can all communicate intratelevisually (non-standard proprietary frequencies) – and then, if even one of them is online... they're all relaying within their private intra-TV spyware meshnets to their various relays.
----
In unrelated news, my 2012 Sony Bravia is still fantastic, even if not for (4K) high-refresh games (the image quality remains fantastic for casual usage).
Have citations of case law that doesn't exist been addressed? It seemed like that kind of outcome being punished might make people less likely to try relying on LLM output for legal situations without an expert human performing a review.
eInk does seem like an awesome choice for this to me too.
I've gone without a bike computer for the same reasons as not wanting a second device. I used my phone for years in a water proof front frame bag with a transparent cover. Usually for not more than 3 hours at a time. Only on my Pixel 7a did I end up with burn in from the Wahoo Android app's status screen, where "n/a" for not having a power meter ultimately burnt in after about 2 years, at least that's when I noticed it. Now I just go without being able to glance down and see ride stats or directions. More planning or stopping if I reroute is required, but I didn't want to damage the phone... :(
Presumably an app could cycle displayed screens, if that's what you meant by switching modes, to avoid burn in? But I really thought AMOLED was past that when I never saw it on previous phones.
> So whoever is writing their email is mixing these two up, but you're reading the policy itself and it is fairly clear-cut what it means for you, right?
This (rhetorical?) question seems to suggest that you have a level of understanding or have done the analysis required to come to such a meaning. It seems to me that it would be most beneficial if you simply shared that analysis.
To me, seeing this here for the first time, it is not at all obvious what the terms mean for someone seeking a donation, because of the past behavioral detail of WireGuard going through something similar. The terms you quote seem to me to state that since there is a tax exempt donation involved, the prohibition on routing to a non-Google Play billing workflow should not be in effect.
> Note: This is a community fork of adevinta/maiao. The original maintainers are no longer at Adevinta and the upstream repository is no longer actively maintained. This fork continues development under runetes/maiao.
At least, as an ignorant outsider, that's how it seems to me.
reply