← Back to context

Comment by whimsicalism

1 day ago

Let’s be very clear, the alleged “stolen results” were largely the product of another LLM, not de novo human work. Also, it was false - they did not steal the results.

No clue why I'm downvoted for this, HN struggles with truth-seeking on these topics.

> HN struggles with truth-seeking on these topics.

The facts are much more nuanced than how you're presenting them here.

  • What’s the nuance? Two researchers alleged theft. OpenAI investigated and confirmed that their research was not in the model’s training data. The world decided to take the first part as objective truth and ignored the second.

    • > OpenAI investigated and confirmed that their research was not in the model’s training data.

      You mean when they say it was impossible to confirm anything but one day after it was 100% confirmed that there was no theft? And here I'm not even talking about all the ethical problems related to trying to scoop another group when you hear they're close to success, or how current solutions follow extremely closely human-generated ideas, or about the lack of relevant citations in OpenAI's paper.

      Believing that OpenAI's claims have any substance cannot be explained by naivety alone.

      1 reply →

Can you show where it was discounted? Last I heard OpenAI was declining to deny it, presumably while they thoroughly confirmed.

I really don't get how people are still continuing with this "stolen results" narrative after today. Like NS was kinda insignificant compared to treasure trove they released now, thinking that the LLM needs to "steal" from some human is simply coping.