Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

WildShiba t1_jeceayj wrote

you mean OUR data

139

fredericksonKorea t1_jedtrgk wrote

All AI data has been trained on our data. Its laughable watching them bitch.

I have a small following for my art online, fucking midjourney jankily replicated my signature. There isn't even that wide of an obfuscation in data.

51

SonOfNod t1_jef71kr wrote

There is an ongoing lawsuit on this issue since some of the AI generated are was so blatantly trained on copyright images that it even puts the watermark on the generated image. If they are generating images with your copyright then that’s a major violation.

8

ghostinshell000 t1_jebm5cc wrote

from what i understand, the models original came from google tom begin with.

81

gurenkagurenda t1_jebq66o wrote

The research did, which is a bit different. I don't see why this would be a violation of the TOS though. I don't see anything in there about using model outputs to train other models. The closest would be:

> reverse assemble, reverse compile, decompile, translate or otherwise attempt to discover the source code or underlying components of models, algorithms, and systems of the Services

But that's not the same thing. Training your own model on ChatGPT outputs won't result in anything like the same source code, algorithms, or model weights as ChatGPT.

25

VelveteenAmbush t1_jec59yj wrote

> I don't see why this would be a violation of the TOS though.

It's this section:

> (c) Restrictions. You may not ... (iii) use output from the Services to develop models that compete with OpenAI;

36

Lemonio t1_jectj5y wrote

It’s interesting because ChatGPT trained their models on data of companies they will now be competing with

24

VelveteenAmbush t1_jecx9ar wrote

Like, Google's data? Or which OpenAI competitor are you thinking about?

6

Lemonio t1_jed6pv1 wrote

Sure, google, Reddit, most big sites on the internet I imagine

13

VelveteenAmbush t1_jegqlm8 wrote

They're competing with Google but Google doesn't publish a lot of text as far as I know.

I don't see how they're a competitor to Reddit.

1

Lemonio t1_jegzrpl wrote

Well people go to both google and Reddit to find answers to questions which is a use case many people could use ChatGPT for

1

ghostinshell000 t1_jebtxlv wrote

pretty much and alot of the Open source models have opensource like licenses on them.

4

Afaren42 t1_jedtu84 wrote

Stanford university used this exact method to train alpaca, an ai, based on llama. Google is doing the exact same thing.

4

sassydodo t1_jebs78j wrote

Something tells me it's not chatgpt data, it's just very large dataset and it just so happens that we as humanity aren't having some other alternative data

Same as saying that someone who builds wind turbines had built his turbines on other company's wind

37

ttocs89 t1_jedn7p1 wrote

One of the current methods for training competing models is to have ChatGPT literally create prompt -> completion data sets. That's what was used for https://github.com/hpcaitech/ColossalAI. A model based off of the Llama weights released by facebook, then fine tuned on ChatGPT3.5 prompt + completions. So yes, there is a good chance that google is literally using ChatGPT in the training loop.

5

Decent-Can378 t1_jecmzvt wrote

Google is panicking. Sundar needs to go and be replaced by someone who can bring back innovation in the company; it's been stagnating for a long time. It needs someone innovative and with a product mindset. If things continue at this rate (and I'm not referring to just this particular incident) Google will have to face the harsh words of its investors very soon. For more context read this: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/03/google-assistant-might-be-doomed-division-reorganizes-to-focus-on-bard/.

25

rain168 t1_jedi0fp wrote

This!!! Google hasn’t come up with anything since Sundar led the company. He doesn’t dare to rock boats or drive results.

Google glasses, dead. Stadia, dead. Then there’s waymo and verily taking forever to release whatever they are working on. Got some results on quantum? Doesn’t monetize cuz scared…

Wonder why the board is so patient with Sundar that doesn’t deliver…

18

Decent-Can378 t1_jedkrq2 wrote

I've always believed that it's always the founders who care about innovation. No McKinsey CEO can even remotely match that passion. Although, I'm seeing quite a different situation with Microsoft. Satya is both passionate and aggressive. Sundar was quite a pathetic choice.

12

[deleted] t1_jedwb2d wrote

[deleted]

5

lixia t1_jee1qpt wrote

Surface has been great. It’s just been pretty safe with the latest yearly refreshes.

Windows 11 is also a hot mess albeit serviceable.

Xbox / games division is on fire (the good kind).

Bing might become a thing with chatgpt integration. I’ve been using it more and more over google lately.

Chromium edge has been my browser of choice for a while now.

5

aphelloworld t1_jefojac wrote

Satya definitely knows what he's doing. Sundar sucks... Too complacent

1

Substantial_Boiler t1_jedvvep wrote

They are actually getting better and more consistent with hardware. Even though they are a software-first company, you'll need to give credit where it is due

1

OkTeaching8737 t1_jedveo6 wrote

Google has been making innovations tho, it’s just in the AI space Google has been very conservative in public usage/interactions because the ethics, laws, and use in that space is very vague and has huge potential for serious damage to googles brand as well as the future of AI. For example Googles internal use of AI has been very impressive and unique, like RankBrain, BERT, MUM, neural matching, not to mention how AI/ML is leveraged in almost everyone of their projects especially in non-generative spaces like earthquake detection or disease prevention.

ChatGPT has been super cool but rn there’s a lot of hype surrounding it, we’re still very early stages AI development, and who knows how well it will age (especially with how it’s common for chat focused models to output bad info, we haven’t seen the real impact of that and how it will shift perceptions of AI).

6

memberjan6 t1_jefgc6w wrote

Deepmind made all the alphago, etc models. I can't believe Google still wont let people use it, like chatalpha kind of thing. Google sits on everything, does damn little with their creations.

1

hatsagorts t1_jed076f wrote

I thought Google has been occupied with quantum computing technologies much more than in developing LLMs

5

jeffyoulose t1_jed3cod wrote

Quantum computing is like a fusion research promise is great but incrementally progressing in a snail pace like it is going nowhere. At this point google either cans the research or continues the sunken cost fallacy.

−9

goofypugs t1_jed91jl wrote

there are quantum computer out right now what are you talking about?

7

mia_elora t1_jeddam9 wrote

Current Quantum computers are pretty limited, still. While they exist, they are nowhere near what the hope and hype suggest. Very much still a WIP. That said, development and breakthroughs are ongoing and it's not a stagnant field of study. It's just slow, currently. We need to figure out how to keep the qubits more stable, etc.

5

goofypugs t1_jede4px wrote

i’m just replying to above comment, sure the hype might be misplaced and based on misunderstandings, but they do exist and work for what they do. Fusion likewise has had a revolutionary breakthrough as of a couple months ago that paves the way for actual implementation. All i’m trying to say it’s not the 90s anymore, where yes you kept hearing about this and nothing seemingly happened, now it’s actually becoming a reality, it’s not hype

1

jeffyoulose t1_jedfy8g wrote

Virtual reality is still hype though. No one wants to spend hours without legs.

−3

goofypugs t1_jedgood wrote

who tf is talking about vr? and no it’s not hype, it’s pretty insane just not quite there yet which doesn’t mean hype

3

jeffyoulose t1_jeesce3 wrote

It's hype in the sense that there isn't mass adoption. Most users quit after a month. Also magicleap is a total disappointment.

1

josefx t1_jednzfo wrote

As far as I understand they are still far from capable enough to actually out pace traditional systems at anything and scaling them up causes the amount of errors to explode to the point where the results become useless.

1

Paperdiego t1_jedoa8v wrote

Google isn't panicking. Reddit dude thinks it knows better lmao

2

Decent-Can378 t1_jedpe1z wrote

Google "reacting" to the chatgpt announcement by unleashing a half-finished Bard in a hurry thereby botching up even a canned demo, using chatgpt data to train Bard, etc go to prove that. Speaking objectively.

8

OkTeaching8737 t1_jedxh1f wrote

Yea Google was caught off guard…but I feel it’s way to early to tell how this will play out. Googles been conservative from the beginning with AI for very good reasons this is very new almost bleeding edge technology, there is law still to be written on it, public hype is great and all but how long will the chatGPT hype last. How long before bad decisions, made on bad info from generative AI shift perceptions against how reliable these tools are. A big part of googles brand is reliability, quality, and accuracy as well as innovation. Microsoft doesn’t have much to lose by going fast and breaking things, in fact they very much have too otherwise Google would continue dominating the AI space.

If you look at how Google actually uses AI, not just one bad demo with Bard that was literally rolled out last minute, they have a deeply future focused approach. They haven’t lost much ground yet and their is no reason they need to chuck their current playbook out the window. The best thing would be to let chatGPT take most of the focus, learn from their pitfalls, and continue making progress in the background while still staying relevant. Which is pretty much what they’re doing.

4

Inquisitive_idiot t1_jedu18i wrote

I work for a competitor and it’s disconcerting seeing one of the FANGs trip up like this. They are such an ingrained part of our culture, have created amazing tech that I use everyday, and seeing them flustered like this on some thing that they should have down cold is concerning.

If one of them stagnates, they all eventually stagnate as well.

3

jeffyoulose t1_jed3lq1 wrote

Yes I agree. Replace the entire C suite. The age of Indian ceos is over. They don't have the drive to innovate.

Just have Elon musk come in as a consultant and run everything into the ground. The end.

−18

CatalyticDragon t1_jee0n8d wrote

That makes no sense at all.

ChatGPT is built using Google technology (transformers) and was trained by crawling the same sorts of public data sources that Google has direct access to.

People think Google is playing catch-up but the situation is very much reversed. ChatGPT just jumped ahead on monetization.

12

manueldigital t1_jecfy9d wrote

this just shows that powerful technology must not be in the hands of single private companies.

8

Myderelictlife t1_jed9a0t wrote

Bard is pretty unimpressive, so I’m not really surprised. It doesn’t even feel like AI, more like a chatbot version of a google search.

5

googler_ooeric t1_jedlbws wrote

I meant, given by how fast it generates and how mediocre it is I think it’s safe to say it’s a lightweight version of whatever big model they have internally, so it’s smaller than GPT-3.5-Turbo or GPT-4 and more similar to something like gpt-3-curie or gpt-3-babbage

3

sephy009 t1_jedebes wrote

Have you tried it recently? It's improved a lot in the past few days.

2

Nonal2 t1_jee3q3s wrote

This is expected. Tech is the same, training data is what was missing. It's mainly because execs did not know what to do with the technology -which is notoriously hard to monetize - and did not invest what was needed to get a ground truth/training set.

1

Myderelictlife t1_jeewfmr wrote

I tried it again yesterday. I inherited a poorly written work document that had all the important information in it but was overall lackluster and didn’t have much fluency. I asked Bard if it could help me rewrite the document, sort of like I’d paste a document to grammarly; but it really only offered suggestions of ways to edit and never to edit the actual document.

It also includes direct links to the websites that it’s getting it’s answers from, so it feels like it’s reciting the top google search results.

1

bloodpilgrim t1_jederjd wrote

Do you want Skynets?! Because this is how you get Skynets.

3

HoplandTek t1_jedqrsu wrote

It's quite pathetic, really. Google has been resting on their laurels for quite some time now, but the cats out of the bag now.

Google stopped being a tech company when every new project just turned out to be a failure.

Serjei Brin, your time is up.

3

Nonal2 t1_jee3o0t wrote

Not exactly. This is mostly the inventor dilemma. Why disrupt a working Search-Ads relationship with something new, hard to monetize ?

3

rickymourke82 t1_jed78zc wrote

Plot twist, he’s a Google plant at OpenAI now.

2

xmichael86 t1_jedgih6 wrote

Why doesn’t google just buy chatgpt? They probably have the cash for it.

1

rain168 t1_jedi95m wrote

Because Google’s current CEO doesn’t dare to do anything risky.

He’s just a rest n vest seat-warmer benefitting from all the easy money from advertising.

10

caroIine t1_jedl0yx wrote

I heard that Microsoft owns 49% of OpenAI

5

Paperdiego t1_jedoftc wrote

That's worthless if google owns the other 51

1

Inquisitive_idiot t1_jedu81k wrote

Fight like that would be interesting*, but it would lead to a terrible stagnation.

*They are a nonprofit and would never sell, unless they almost got bankrupt again,, but just entertaining your

1

yo_jack1 t1_jee2gqg wrote

I don't think Google can just pull up and buy the remaining 51%

1

Coffee_nomnom t1_jeeac8q wrote

Idk bout other ppl but bard hasn’t been that impressive to me. Bing does the same thing. It has better connectivity to the net so far. Anyone else? Am I missing the best use cases for bard?

1

8ew8135 t1_jeeupvr wrote

Google doesn’t develop things it buys things, they only needed a dummy model to scare other companies into thinking there is a competitor that could outmaneuver them if they don’t sell to Google, it’s not like Google is trying to beat anyone with their tech.

1

Rusalka-rusalka t1_jef21pd wrote

AI is a potential cash windfall for tech, they will try to cram it in everywhere. They are definitely riding the hype as long as they can. I am weary at this point.

1

B-33-r t1_jefhbsb wrote

I think the H3 podcast had a former google employee that worked with the AI. Lots of info

1

euph-_-oric t1_jefm5t0 wrote

I literally thought all ai was basically using the same large data sets?

1

N3KIO t1_jedja98 wrote

why make your own when you can copy

−1

GetOutOfTheWhey t1_jedl6vi wrote

By this do they mean Google is reverse engineering ChatGPT through interactions with it and building Bard from it?

−2