15
Inside ‘Project Lily’: The Humans Reading Your ChatGPT Chats (www.404media.co)
submitted 1 month ago by [B] to c/pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
comment fedilink hide all child comments
 

Humans are reading ChatGPT users’ prompts to improve OpenAI’s models, and those chats can include sensitive, personal information, according to leaked internal documents and real prompts seen by 404 Media.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
20 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 63 points 1 month ago (7 children)

I'm 100% positive they're not reading my ChatGPT logs.

(I don't use ChatGPT, and neither should anyone else.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Someone can submit your messages / cv etc to chatgpt against your will.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Sure, but how likely is that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • [–] 14 points 1 month ago

    There probably has been some disclaimer that we all got so used to just clicking away. Saying that everything you say here will be recorded and read by 3rd parties. Or some such. Right?!

    I'm not saying this makes it OK though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    The disclaimer is shown when you submit feedback about you chat. They're not reading random chats, they're reading chats reported by user where ChatGPT does something awful, makes major mistakes, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 10 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Kinda hate to show my whole ass on this topic, but I lived through this exact thing 5 or 6 years ago when AI Dungeon accused its entire userbase of being pedophiles.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Were they?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    Mechanical Turk, redux.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_Turk

    Also, the privacy concerns are an absolute nightmare. 100% chance this leads to a massive leak.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    That's not what this is. Humans aren't providing the responses, they're reviewing them, grading them, and using them to train models.

    An example of a mechanical turk would be Waymo using humans to navigate situations the computer can't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    If AI is so smart, why does it need this level of baby-sitting from humans? Mechanical Turk, one step removed.

    The tech gods are saying they've reached Artificial General Intelligence, yet clearly if they have to pay humans to continually train the bots on the subtleties of human interaction, they have not reached AGI, and even feeding an LLM the entire corpus of the internet is insufficient to train them.

    As much as I think this is a good and necessary step (privacy concerns aside), it definitely does point to AI being significantly less than advertised.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    It's not babysitting, it's training. The humans grading the responses is how the models are being improved. It's just a more targeted approach than "let's scan the whole internet."

    Humans aren't pretending to be AI. This is a completely different scenario than the mechanical turk.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You are correct, it is not literally talking to a person. You could even go further and point out that the trainers are not literally Turkish.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    You seem to not be grasping the concept of the mechanical turk. The human was the one playing chess, not the machine. The machine playing chess was a lie.

    You're basically saying that a student's math teacher is actually doing the student's homework because they taught the student how to do it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Yes, and this machine that taught itself how to be smart from absorbing data is likewise a lie.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    That still doesn't mean it's comparable to the mechanical turk. The machine didn't actually do anything. It was all the human.

    That's not the case for AI. What AI does is actually transformative, and the output is not just a person pretending to be a machine.

    A human providing the output while pretending to be a machine is a hard requirement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (-1 replies)