OpenAI does not want anyone to know what o1 is “thinking" under the hood.

  • tja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Uh, so what’s with the name ‘OpenAI’?? This non-transparency does nothing to serve the name. I propose ‘DisemblingAI’ perhaps ‘ConfidenceAI’ or perhaps ‘SeeminglyAI’

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    “We’re a scientific research company. We believe in open technology. Wait, what are you doing? Noooooo, you’re not allowed to study or examine our program intelligent thinking machine!”

  • randoot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    I tried sending an encoded message to the unfiltered model and asked it to reply encoded as well but the man in the middle filter detected the attempt and scolded me. I didn’t get an email though.

    • figaro@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m curious, could you elaborate on what this means and what it would accomplish if successful?

      • randoot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        I sent a rot13 encoded message and tried to get the unfiltered model to write me back in rot13. It immediately “thought” about user trying to bypass filtering and then it refused.

  • Rob200@lemmy.autism.place
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    gasp ai is becoming more secretive and… dangerous to fans who might be too interested in ai? The ones who want to study it?

    Nothing is opening and friendly about this “open ai” and whatever left is friendly, they’l target next if it conflicts their business and bottom line.

    unrelated but needs to be stated for some:

    Before someone asks “why u filter out the screenshot content”

    1. i’m commentating my views on the situation, and narrowing it down to what i’m talking about.
    2. it’s even more likely to be a fair use if I’m not reusing the entire content. Please view the original article if you’re looking to read it through in it’s pure form.
    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      You can just quotes the sections that are relevant. That is what everyone else does.

      Every time you do stuff like this it always gives me a headache trying to follow what you’re trying to say, It always looks like you’re cutting words out of newspapers in order to form a ransom note.

    • Womble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      You know, if you want to do that without looking like you’re distorting what has been said by censoring the bits you dont want other people to see you can highlight the bits you want to talk about. That way other people can see the context and make their own decisions.

      • Rob200@lemmy.autism.place
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        The article at the end of the day is there. Dispite what I do, everyone has access to the content in full if they really need it.

        PLus it’s good to read other paragraphs besides the specific ones I might highlight.

  • andyburke@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Don’t look behind the curtain! It’s totally not all bullshit stats all the way down!!