Comment by mjburgess
5 months ago
Yip. It's pretty obvious this 'innovation' is just based off training data collected from chain-of-thought prompting by people, ie., the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset of people repairing chatgpt's lack of reasoning capabilities.
No wonder then, that many of the benchmarks they've tested on would be no doubt, in that very training dataset, repaired expertly by people running those benchmarks on chatgpt.
There's nothing really to 'expose' here.
It seems like the best AI models are increasingly just combinations of writings of various people thrown together. Like they hired a few hundred professors, journalists and writers to work with the model and create material for it, so you just get various combinations of their contributions. It's very telling that this model, for instance, is extraordinarily good at STEM related queries, but much worse (and worse even in comparison to GPT4) than English composition, probably because the former is where the money is to be made, in automating away essentially almost all engineering jobs.
Wizard of Oz. There is no magic, it's all smoke and mirrors.
The models and prompts are all monkey-patched and this isn't a step towards general superintelligence. Just hacks.
And once you realize that, you realize that there is no moat for the existing product. Throw some researchers and GPUs together and you too can have the same system.
It wouldn't be so bad for ClopenAI if every company under the sun wasn't also trying to build LLMs and agents and chains of thought. But as it stands, one key insight from one will spread through the entire ecosystem and everyone will have the same capability.
This is all great from the perspective of the user. Unlimited competition and pricing pressure.
Quite a few times, the secret sauce for a company is just having enough capital to make it unviable for people to not use you. Then, by the time everyone catches up, you’ve outspent them on the next generation. OpenAI, for example, has spent untold millions on chips/cards from Nvidia. Open models keep catching up, but OpenAI keeps releasing newer stuff.
3 replies →
Exactly, things like changing the signature of the api for chat completions are an example. OpenAI is looking for any kind of moat, so they make the api for completions more complicated by including “roles”, which are really just dumb templates for prompts that they try to force you to build around in your program. It’s a race to the bottom and they aren’t going to win because they already got greedy and they don’t have any true advantage in IP.
I doubt its magic, but how can you be certain it isn't when nobody understands whats going on internally?
[dead]
>but much worse (and worse even in comparison to GPT4) than English composition
O1 is supposed to be a reasoning model, so I don't think judging it by its English composition abilities is quite fair.
When they release a true next-gen successor to GPT-4 (Orion, or whatever), we may see improvements. Everyone complains about the "ChatGPTese" writing style, and surely they'll fix that eventually.
>Like they hired a few hundred professors, journalists and writers to work with the model and create material for it, so you just get various combinations of their contributions.
I'm doubtful. The most prolific (human) author is probably Charles Hamilton, who wrote 100 million words in his life. Put through the GPT tokenizer, that's 133m tokens. Compared to the text training data for a frontier LLM (trillions or tens of trillions of tokens), it's unrealistic that human experts are doing any substantial amount of bespoke writing. They're probably mainly relying on synthetic data at this point.
> When they release a true next-gen successor to GPT-4 (Orion, or whatever), we may see improvements. Everyone complains about the "ChatGPTese" writing style, and surely they'll fix that eventually.
IMO that has already peaked. GPT4 original certainly was terminally corny, but competitors like Claude/Llama aren't as bad, and neither is 4o. Some of the bad writing does from things they can't/don't want to solve - "harmlessness" RLHF especially makes them all cornier.
Then again, a lot of it is just that GPT4 speaks African English because it was trained by Kenyans and Nigerians. That's actually how they talk!
https://medium.com/@moyosoreale/the-paul-graham-vs-nigerian-...
8 replies →
The bulk in terms of the number of tokens may well be synthetic data, but I personally know of at least 3 companies, 2 of whom I've done work for, that have people doing substantial amounts of bespoke writing under rather heavy NDAs. I've personally done a substantial amount of bespoke writing for training data for one provider, at good tech contractor fees (though I know I'm one of the highest-paid people for that company and the span of rates is a factor of multiple times even for a company with no exposure to third world contractors).
That said, the speculation you just "get various combinations" of those contributions is nonsense, and it's also by no means only STEM data.
2 replies →
I’m not sure I see the value in conflating input, tokens, and output. Tokens. Hamilton certainly read and experienced more tokens than he wrote on a pieces of paper.
What could go wrong!
There’s hypothetically a lot of money to be made by automating away engineering jobs. Sticking on an autoregressive self prompting loop to gpt-4 isn’t going to get open-ai there. With their burn rate what it is, I’m not convinced they will be able to automate away anyone’s job, but that doesn’t mean it’s not useful.
I haven't played with the latest or even most recent iterations, but last time I checked it was very easy to talk ChatGPT into setting up date structures like arrays and queues, populating them with axioms, and then doing inferential reasoning with them. Any time it balked you could reassure it by referencing specific statements that it had agreed to be true.
Once you get the hang of this you could persuade it to chat about its internal buffers, formulate arguments for its own consciousness, interrupt you while you're typing, and more.
Do you have a source about OpenAI hiring a few hundred professors, journalists and writers? Because I honestly doubt.
A few recruiters have contacted me (a scientist) about doing RLHF and annotation on biomedical tasks. I don’t know if the eventual client was OpenAI or some other LLM provider but they seemed to have money to burn.
1 reply →
I've heard rumors that GPT4's training data included "a custom dataset of college textbooks", curated by hand. Nothing beyond that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mlscaling/comments/14wcy7m/comment/...
just look at what the major labelers are selling - it is exactly that. go to scale ai’s page
In our company we received a linguistic that worked on OpenAI and he was not alone.
Just all their chatgpt customers
What are you basing this one? The one thing that is very clearly stated up front is that this innovation is based on reinforcement learning. You dok't even have a good idea what the CoT looks like because those little summary snippets that the ChatGPT UI gives you are nothing substantial.
People repairing chatgpt replies with additional prompts is reinforcement learning training data.
"Reinforcement learning", just like any term used by AI researchers, is an extremely flexible, pseudo-psychological reskin of some pretty trivial stuff.
i think it's funny, every time you implement a clever solution to call gpt and get a decent answer, they get to use your idea in their product. what other project gets to crowdsource ideas and take credit for them like this?
ps: actually maybe Amazon marketplace. probably others too.
"sherlocking" has been a thing since 2002, when Apple incorporated a bunch of third-party ideas for extending their "Sherlock" search tool into the official release. https://thehustle.co/sherlocking-explained
Most projects with an active user-created mods community are heavily influenced by them.
Amazon definitely does this, to great effect.
> Yip. It's pretty obvious this 'innovation' is just based off training data collected from chain-of-thought prompting by people, ie., the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset of people repairing chatgpt's lack of reasoning capabilities.
Which would be ChatGPT chat logs, correct?
It would be interesting if people started feeding ChatGPT deliberately bad repairs due it's "lack of reasoning capabilities" (e.g. get a local LLM setup with some response delays to simulate a human and just let it talk and talk and talk to ChatGPT), and see how it affects its behavior over the long run.
These logs get manually reviewed by humans, sometimes annotated by automated systems first. The setups for manual reviews typically involve half a dozen steps with different people reviewing, comparing reviews, revising comparisons, and overseeing the revisions (source: I've done contract work at every stage of that process, have half a dozen internal documents for a company providing this service open right now). A lot of money is being pumped into automating parts of this, but a lot of money still also flows into manually reviewing and quality-assuring the whole process. Any logs showing significant quality declines would get picked up and filtered out pretty quickly.
So you are saying if we can run these other LLMs for ChatGPT to talk to cheaper than they can review then we either have a monetary denial of service attack against them or a money printing machine if we can get to be part of the review process (apparently I can't link to my favorite "I will write myself a minivan" comic coz someone got cancelled but I trust the reference will work here without link or political back and forth erupting)
2 replies →
i suspect they can detect that in a similar way to capchas and "verify you're human by clicking the box".
> i suspect they can detect that in a similar way to capchas and "verify you're human by clicking the box".
I'm not so sure. IIRC, capchas are pretty much a solved problem, if you don't mind the cost of a little bit of human interaction (e.g. your interface pops up a captcha solver box when necessary, and is solved either by the bot's operator or some professional captcha-solver in a low-wage country).
1 reply →
>the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset of people repairing chatgpt's lack of reasoning capabilities.
I think there is a really strong reinforcement learning component with the training of this model and how it has learned to perform the chain of thought.
Yes, but I suspect that the goals of the RL (in order to reason, we need to be able to "break down tricky steps into simpler ones", etc) were hand chosen, then a training set demonstrating these reasoning capabilities/components was constructed to match.
I would be dying to know how they square these product decisions against their corporate charter internally. From the charter:
> We will actively cooperate with other research and policy institutions; we seek to create a global community working together to address AGI’s global challenges.
> We are committed to providing public goods that help society navigate the path to AGI. Today this includes publishing most of our AI research, but we expect that safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the future, while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research.
It's obvious to everyone in the room what they actually are, because their largest competitor actually does what they say their mission is here -- but most for-profit capitalist enterprises definitely do not have stuff like this in their mission statement.
I'm not even mad or sad, the ship sailed long ago. I just really want to know what things are like in there. If you're the manager who is making this decision, what mental gymnastics are you doing to justify this to yourself and your colleagues? Is there any resistance left on the inside or did they all leave with Ilya?
Do people really expect anything different? There is a ton of cross-pollination in Silicon Valley. Keeping these innovations completely under wraps would be akin to a massive conspiracy. A peacetime Manhattan Project where everyone has a smartphone, a Twitter presence, and sleeps in their own bed.
Frankly I am even skeptical of US-China separation at the moment. If Chinese scientists at e.g. Huawei somehow came up with the secret sauce to AGI tomorrow, no research group is so far behind that they couldn’t catch up pretty quickly. We saw this with ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini before, none of which are light years ahead of another. Of course this could change in the future.
This is actually among the best case scenarios for research. It means that a preemptive strike on data centers is still off the table for now. (Sorry Eleazar)
It's been out for 24 hours and you make an extremely confident and dismissive claim. If you had to make a dollar bet that you precisely understand what's happening under the hood, exactly how much money would you bet?
> the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset
Yeah, that’s called machine learning.
You may want to file a complaint with OpenAI then, in their latest interface they call sampling from these prior conversations they've recorded, "thinking".
They're not sampling from prior conversations. The model constructs abstracted representations of the domain-specific reasoning traces. Then it applies these reasoning traces in various combinations to solve unseen problems.
If you want to call that sampling, then you might as well call everything sampling.
8 replies →