undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointsosigurdson1y ago0 comments

I do think that distilling a model from another is much less impressive than distilling one from raw text. However, it is hard to say if it is really illegal or even immoral, perhaps just one step further in the evolution of the space.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

lemoncookiechip1y ago· 2 in thread

It's about as illegal as the billions, if not trillions of IPs that ClosedAI infringed to train their own data without consent. Not that they're alone, and I personally don't mind that AI companies do it, but it's still amusing when they get this annoyed at others doing the same thing to them.

osigurdsonOP1y ago

I think they had the advantage of being ahead of the law in this regard. To my knowledge, reading copywritten material isn't (or wasn't illegal) and remains a legal grey area.

Distilling weights from prompts and responses is even more of a legal grey area. The legal system cannot respond quickly to such technological advancements so things necessarily remain a wild west until technology reaches the asymptotic portion of the curve.

In my view the most interesting thing is, do we really need vast data centers and innumerable GPUs for AGI? In other words, if intelligence is ultimately a function of power input, what is the shape of the curve?

ReptileMan1y ago

Is the question of training AI on data fair use settled yet? Because if it is not - it looks like fair use to me.

Isn't it more impressive given that training on model output usually leads to worse model?

If they actually figured out how to use output of existing models to build model that outperforms them then it's something that brings us closer to singularity than every other development so far.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse