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!
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!
What I was referring to is the fact that neither Levent Alpöge nor Tristan Buckmaster will answer this question.
What are you basing this on? The linked threads already acknowledged his opting out, and they don't look as settled as you claim.
What I was referring to is the fact that neither Levent Alpöge nor Tristan Buckmaster will answer this question.
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.