Fake copyright claim finetunes11/13/2023 ![]() I think of them as Swagger generators, but instead of being for an OpenAPI standard they are for everything. Which is a significant efficiency and quality improvement on the work I do. I’m not sure I’ll ever need to write JSDoc again on anything that isn’t too sensitive to share. What they are good at, however, is helping us build things. Or to put it differently in SWE the LLM seem very bad at building things. Similarly we’ve stopped using co-pilot because it takes too much time to make it go away when it’s being bad to make up for the good it does. We’ve yet to get it to really do anything that wasn’t fairly basic, or solved a billion times on the internet anyway. Not for a lack of trying, but because ChatGPT simply tells too many lies. If you go through my history (you don’t have too I’ll sum it up), you’ll see that I’m not impressed by the capabilities of LLM to actually do my work. I’m curios as to why you think the hype isn’t warranted. (leaving aside the argument whether this is the right approach for factuality)įor example, training on 100k ChatGPT outputs from broad-coverage user inputs provides no benefits to Natural Questions accuracy (e.g., Figure 1, center), but training exclusively on ChatGPT responses for Natural-Questions-like queries drastically improves task accuracy. ![]() Later on this also works for factual correctness. Just because this might not be the way to replicate the performance of ChatGPT across all tasks, it seems to work quite well on whichever tasks are in the imitation learning. For example, training on 100k ChatGPT outputs from broad-coverage user inputs provides no benefits to Natural Questions accuracy (e.g., Figure 1, center), but training exclusively on ChatGPT responses for Natural-Questions-like queries drastically improves task accuracy. On the other hand, the models do not improve (or even decline in accuracy) on evaluation datasets for which there is little support. In particular, we demonstrate that imitation models improve on evaluation tasks that are heavily supported in the imitation training data. However, when conducting more targeted automatic evaluations, we found that the imitation models close little to none of the large gap between LLaMA and ChatGPT. Sensational title that misrepresents the message in paper. > It’s starting to come off like a hidden agenda.ĪI was used to fake the moon landing and hide bigfoot /s If you increase the number of persuasive Gobbels and hackers attacking infrastructure by 100,000x you do not come away with a better world. No one can present a great thought experiment. > The “AI is dangerous” premise has no basis whatsoever. The Company does not sell products to customers in Russia. The USG indicated that the new license requirement will address the risk that the covered products may be used in, or diverted to, a ‘military end use’ or ‘military end user’ in China and Russia. A license is required to export technology to support or develop covered products. The license requirement also includes any future NVIDIA integrated circuit achieving both peak performance and chip-to-chip I/O performance equal to or greater than thresholds that are roughly equivalent to the A100, as well as any system that includes those circuits. DGX or any other systems which incorporate A100 or H100 integrated circuits and the A100X are also covered by the new license requirement. government, or USG, informed NVIDIA Corporation, or the Company, that the USG has imposed a new license requirement, effective immediately, for any future export to China (including Hong Kong) and Russia of the Company’s A100 and forthcoming H100 integrated circuits. ![]() I believe strongly that these false claimants should be held responsible for the loss of views or revenue and should be counter struck.> Fewer people agree with your premise, and that’s fortunate.ĭatacenter NVIDIA cards are already on the export control list for potential military use, and that was pre ChatGPT and GPT-4: Here are a few videos where users have claimed LeakID has falsely claimed copyright. I feel this is purely an attempt to acquire revenue off a trending video LeakID did not produce themselves.Īttempts to reach them have failed as expected as this is clearly an illegitimate strike to either harass, impeded or steal from active channels. Please also note on research, it seems the claimant (LeakID) has falsely struck other channels in the past without the claimant having similar content. ![]() As per above, the gameplay video (mine) is created by the users who streamed it (me), the claimant (leakID)does not own the rights to gameplay video or the distributors of said game(Codemasters). Please note, I have included the link to the video that was stated to have copyrighted material. There was no live footage of any real F1 race, there was no copyright music or anything. I was live streaming a F1 race on my PS4 of me playing F1 2016. So on Sunday, my channel recieved a fake Copyright claim.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |