This is exactly the issue.

What the mathematicians could do is reveal whether they had the data-sharing opt-out on or not. But curiously, as far as I've seen, none of them will answer that question!

▲

cmiles8 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well that assumes OpenAI respects that setting. Given some of the company’s ethical challenges to date that’s not something folks are willing to just assume is happening.

▲

heaney-555 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you could prove that, it would be a gargantuan class-action lawsuit. And there would almost certainly be at least one whistleblower.

	▲	cmiles8 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		See other post today about where OpenAI keeps flipping the toggle back to “share.” Even if it was technically turned on, the dark patterns that are clearly trying to override the obvious intent of the user are deeply unethical.

▲

brookst 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How does OpenAI’s respect (or lack thereof) for the setting change whether the people involved could say whether they had opted out of training? They comment you replied to noted that none of them had shared that info. How are they blocked from doing so?

▲

socialcommenter 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Andreas opted out on June 29th[0]. As discussed elsewhere on HN[1]

[0] https://mathstodon.xyz/@andreasthom/117240535270608201

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49638353

▲

heaney-555 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Then none of his work after June 29 will be included in the training data.

What I was referring to is the fact that neither Levent Alpöge nor Tristan Buckmaster will answer this question.

	▲	croon 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Then none of his work after June 29 will be included in the training data. What are you basing this on? The linked threads already acknowledged his opting out, and they don't look as settled as you claim.

▲

asimpletune 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One of them said they turned it off in June, back in the original mastodon thread.

	▲	heaney-555 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Then none of his work after June will be included in the training data. What I was referring to is the fact that neither Levent Alpöge nor Tristan Buckmaster will answer this question.

▲

aenis 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And its reasonable to assume that if they did, in fact, opt out, they'd make it clear.

Most people do not understand that the main reason for the subscriptions is to give OpenAI and Anthropic the priceless, unique data that shows how the models are used, what people are building, how they are building, which solutions they consider OK, which they consider bad -- they purchase this data with cheap tokens. This is their only moat, really. If some really proprietary IP gets swept in the training data set its not really OpenAI's fault -- its the researchers'. Have something secretive? Dont fricking paste this into chatgpt. Duh!

(I'd definitely not think OpenAI/Anthropic ignore the opt outs, or ZDRs. All it would take is one whistleblower to get them into terminal troubles. And why would they do it? They are not in the business of scooping unique IP -- they are in the business of understanding how AI is used across a variety of mundane, day to day work of individuals and companies. Useless math problem is good (or bad, as in this case) PR, but otherwise entirely worthless for the labs.