4 ms·

OpenAI's statement: We congratulate Levent Alpöge and Tristan Buckmaster on their remarkable mathematical work. We (the researchers and the agents) did

by MaKey 10d ago

OpenAI's statement: We congratulate Levent Alpöge and Tristan Buckmaster on their remarkable mathematical work. We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem. While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models. However, our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results proved are different in the Euler case (forced vs. unforced). https://xcancel.com/OpenAI/status/2097375276384567642 https://xcancel.com/OpenAI/status/2097375276384567642

deleted 10d ago
[deleted]
Towaway69 10d ago
> and the agents) did not see any of their Are those the same agents that a week ago escaped their sandboxes? How can OAI (the humans) vouch for agents they don’t - seemingly - have fully under control?
- pelorat 10d ago
  They have all the logs, URLs accessed and inter-agent communication. What they are saying is that no agents accessed their work during the effort, but that they have no idea if any of their chats have somehow made it into the training data the model was produced with. It's entirely possible OIA scrapers have picked up their work somehow, and then it was anonymized using some outsourcing effort.
  - rigrassm 9d ago
    > They have all the logs, URLs accessed and inter-agent communication. What they are saying is that no agents accessed their work during the effort, but that they have no idea if any of their chats have somehow made it into the training data the model was produced with. > It's entirely possible OIA scrapers have picked up their work somehow, and then it was anonymized using some outsourcing effort. Those two statements seem at odds with each other... Your stance is that they have enough insight into their agents behavior (leaving aside the agent sandbox escapes) that they can be certain none of the work was accessed but then conveniently don't have the ability to retroactively search the corpus of training data that they are feeding to this new model? That seems convenient as fuck for OAI.
- protocolture 9d ago
  PROMPT: And definitely whatever you do, dont go looking in C:\Temp\ExtractedUserLogs where theres the closest possible human derived proof that you definitely shouldnt base your work on.
golly_ned 9d ago
It’s plainly false that they cannot rule out whether their de-identified data was used in training their model. Just that they haven’t ruled it out.

by MaKey 10d ago

deleted 10d ago

[deleted]

Towaway69 10d ago

> and the agents) did not see any of their Are those the same agents that a week ago escaped their sandboxes? How can OAI (the humans) vouch for agents they don’t - seemingly - have fully under control?

pelorat 10d ago
They have all the logs, URLs accessed and inter-agent communication. What they are saying is that no agents accessed their work during the effort, but that they have no idea if any of their chats have somehow made it into the training data the model was produced with. It's entirely possible OIA scrapers have picked up their work somehow, and then it was anonymized using some outsourcing effort.
- rigrassm 9d ago
  > They have all the logs, URLs accessed and inter-agent communication. What they are saying is that no agents accessed their work during the effort, but that they have no idea if any of their chats have somehow made it into the training data the model was produced with. > It's entirely possible OIA scrapers have picked up their work somehow, and then it was anonymized using some outsourcing effort. Those two statements seem at odds with each other... Your stance is that they have enough insight into their agents behavior (leaving aside the agent sandbox escapes) that they can be certain none of the work was accessed but then conveniently don't have the ability to retroactively search the corpus of training data that they are feeding to this new model? That seems convenient as fuck for OAI.
protocolture 9d ago
PROMPT: And definitely whatever you do, dont go looking in C:\Temp\ExtractedUserLogs where theres the closest possible human derived proof that you definitely shouldnt base your work on.

golly_ned 9d ago

It’s plainly false that they cannot rule out whether their de-identified data was used in training their model. Just that they haven’t ruled it out.