Hacker News Reader

Comment by nawgz | Hacker News Reader

The content on the modern internet should more or less already be proof of the headline.

That said, the idea that $60 is sufficient to disrupt multiple selected datasets is quite interesting, and then leaves me to wonder how the largest AI companies are presumably already aware of and defending against this - how much do you think it would cost to meaningfully attack / poison ChatGPT?

View on HN

ChatGPT is fine tuned on a curated, relatively small dataset, which is of very high value and would mitigate some of the attacks

Have you come across any specific details on their input datasets? I’ve been assuming CommonCrawl and Pile but if you have anything specific it would be very interesting what else was used.

All the major LLM vendors are vague on datasets because it's quite certainly copyrighted text, (Remember when Google was scanning all the world's books a decade ago?) and they don't want to give the inevitable lawsuits a jump start.

You can just ask ChatGPT what data it was trained on.

> The news groups' concerns arose when the computational journalist Francesco Marconi posted a tweet last week saying their work was being used to train ChatGPT. Marconi said he asked the chatbot for a list of news sources it was trained on and received a response naming 20 outlets including the WSJ, New York Times, Bloomberg, Associated Press, Reuters, CNN and TechCrunch.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-17/openai-is...

Wouldn't ChatGPT name a source even if it did not use that source or if the claim could not be sourced?

Can ChatGPT be trusted on these kind of matters, though? If doesn't really know how not to know.

Would ChatGPT snitch on ChatGPT

>Remember when Google was scanning all the world's books a decade ago?

Yes, and I remember that they won that lawsuit.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.google/products/search/ove...

This works fine for now. I am however worried that politics will make this much harder in the future. We're already seeing that a certain crowd wishes that AI responses reflect the "average" without any kinds of filtering. If they were to pass a law in this direction (and, let's face it, considering all the other overstepping laws passed in the direction of book banning etc. this is sure to come) we might not have any choice or options left.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com