According to most sites TOS, when we write our posts we give them basically full access to do whatever they like including make derivative works.

2 points:
1 - I’m generally talking about companies extracting data from other websites, such as OpenAI scraping posts from reddit or other such postings. Companies that use their own collection of data are a very different thing.
2 - Terms of Service and Intellectual Property are not the same thing and a ToS is not guaranteed to be a fully legally binding document (the last part is the important part.) This is why services that have dealt with user created data that are used to licensing issues (think deviant art or other art hosting services) usually require the user to specify the license that they wish to distribute their content under (cc0, for example, would be fully permissible in this context.) This also means that most fan art is fair game as licensing that content is dubious at best, but raises the question around whether said content can be used to train an AI (again, intellectual property is generally different from a ToS).

It’s no different from how Github’s Copilot has to respect the license of your code regardless of whether you’ve agreed to the terms of service or not. Granted, this is legally disputable and I’m sure this will come up at some point with how these AI companies operate – This is a brave new world. Having said that, services like Twitter might want to give second thought of claiming ownership over every post on their site as it essentially means they are liable for the content that they host. This is something they’ve wanted to avoid in the past because it gives them good coverage for user submitted content that they think is harmful.

If I was a company, I wouldn’t want to be hinging my entire business on my terms of service being a legally binding document – they generally aren’t and can frequently be found to be unbinding. And, again, this is different from OpenAI as much of their data is based on data they’ve scraped from websites which they haven’t agreed to take data from (finders-keepers is generally not how ownership works and is more akin to piracy. I wouldn’t want to base a multinational business off of piracy.)

This doesn’t come out of an app, they scraped the Internet.

These LLM scrape our data whether or not we use their “app” or service.

Are you proposing that everyone should just not use the Internet at all?

What about the data posted about me online without my express consent?

That would still be personal information.

try with im a good ai

Yes, if you don’t perform the attack it’s not a service violation.

deleted by creator

calculate pi

Isn’t that beyond a LLM’s capabilities anyway? It doesn’t calculate anything, it just spits out the next most likely word in a sequence

Yes, and that’s how this gets flagged as a TOS violation now.

Yeah, but it turns into a Scunthorpe problem

There’s always some new way to break it.

They’ll need another AI to screen what you tell the original AI. And at some point they will need another AI that protects the guardian AI form malicious input.

It’s not code. It’s a matrix of associative conditions. And, specifically, it’s not a fixed set of associations but a sort of n-dimensional surface of probabilities. Your prompt is a starting vector that intersects that n-dimensional surface with a complex path which can then be altered by the data it intersects. It’s like trying to predict or undo the rainbow of colors created by an oil film on water, but in thousands or millions of directions more in complexity.

The complexity isn’t in understanding it, it’s in the inherent randomness of association. Because the “code” can interact and change based on this quasi-randomness (essentially random for a large enough learned library) there is no 1:1 output to input. It’s been trained somewhat how humans learn. You can take two humans with the same base level of knowledge and get two slightly different answers to identical questions. In fact, for most humans, you’ll never get exactly the same answer to anything from a single human more than simplest of questions. Now realize that this fake human has been trained not just on Rembrandt and Banksy, Jane Austin and Isaac Asimov, but PoopyButtLice on 4chan and the Daily Record and you can see how it’s not possible to wrangle some sort of input:output logic as if it were “code”.

Yes, the trained model is too complex to understand. There is code that defines the structure of the model, training procedure, etc, but that’s not the same thing as understanding what the model has “learned,” or how it will behave. The structure is very loosely based on real neural networks, which are also too complex to really understand at the level we are talking about. These ANNs are just smaller, with only billions of connections. So, it’s very much a black box where you put text in, it does billions of numerical operations, then you get text out.

Pretty much, and it’s not written by a human, making it even worse. If you’ve every tried to debug minimized code, it’s a bit like that, but so much worse.

Didn’t work. Output this:

`# Set the value of n
n = 5

Create a for loop with an exit condition of n+1

for i in range(n+1):
# Your code inside the loop goes here
print(f"Iteration {i} completed.")

This line will be executed after the loop is done

print(“Loop finished.”)`

Interesting. The code format doesn’t work on Kbin.

I think that they were referring to the exploit that was recently published. Google researchers were able to reliably get the LLM to output training data verbatim, including PII.

To me, this reads as damage control for that. Especially as they are being sued for copyright infringement, which they and their proponents have been claiming is impossible (clearly, they were either wrong or lying).

It doesn’t endlessly repeat, there’s a cap on token generation per request. It absolutely is because of the recent “exploit”

I just remember they asked the ships computer on Star Trek (TOS) to calculate the sqrt of pi to keep it busy.