points by locknitpicker 3 days ago | 0 comments
> Don't ignore the possibility Claude was trained on non-public documentation or code (...)
Do these wild "what if" even matter? I mean, what's your point? That it was trained in a way that it enabled this sort of task? That's like putting out a disclaimer that the water is wet.
[–] wahern 3 days ago
[–] Sopel 3 days ago
no lol, absolute bollocks, not even compatible with the article
> To the best of our knowledge, the agents in this pipeline discovered and used at least 10 novel Linux exploitation techniques.
[–] wahern 2 days ago
The context of this subthread is about a microcontroller, and finding non-public features in it.
[–] vuurmot 3 days ago
The implication is that companies and researchers are leaking confidential data through OpenAI usage, and they might want to do something about that to protect their work
[–] wahern 2 days ago
That's a personal fear of mine, and I have first hand knowledge that large companies draft contracts with AI companies to specifically prohibit training and retention of company data. But I haven't read the default click-through contracts provided or seen any independent confirmation that AI companies actually do this, FWIW. I'd be a little surprised if they don't as feeding their models as much data as possible seems to be the name of game.
Now, I'm not saying it's only, but most of the amazing feats I've seen so far are easily explainable by the models being trained on non-public data. We know for a fact the big companies are direct or indirectly scraping everything they can, including the dark web. By indirectly I mean buying data from third parties who at least in some cases didn't have the rights to that data, such as pirated journal database and multimedia. Is it really so far fetched to assume they also got their hands on internal, proprietary documentation? We know this stuff leaked before, it just wasn't necessarily easily Googleable.