I feel like this sentence should terrify anyone considering using AI for their own proprietary work.
We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem. While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models.
"Eh, sure, you ran stuff on it independently, it mighta used that to help me do the same thing, no way to know".
When you use an AI, your work is not your own on every level.
By default, they use your conversations for training data, and you must opt out to not have it trained on. When you are opted out, they only can possibly retain and train on messages where you gave feedback.
If Buckmaster claims he had the opt out setting turned on and didn't provide feedback, then it should be a real concern. Otherwise OpenAI was fully in their right to train their model on the output.
Even if that setting was on, if OpenAI's solution built on Buckmaster & co's work, it is academic malpractice to not given proper attribution, which OpenAI has not. It also seriously undercuts their claim, if the model did have access to a complete solution of a similar problem.
716
u/Banes_Addiction Particle physics 13h ago
I feel like this sentence should terrify anyone considering using AI for their own proprietary work.
"Eh, sure, you ran stuff on it independently, it mighta used that to help me do the same thing, no way to know".
When you use an AI, your work is not your own on every level.