But consider they could decide that they want to scoop more regular research work too. They could automate it with just a few LoC. Even if you opted out in the ToS, you'd have to file a massive lawsuit just to enforce it. And the actual fine would be inconsequential to OpenAI.

I think going forward, any researcher should consider anything submitted to an LLM to be copied/stolen.

Personally this is a watershed moment for researchers and grad students I know. All of them are close sourcing WIP repos, not putting their progress in LLMs, or have lab level initiatives to self host models.

I am building a federated hosting platform that I plan to opensource for this exact reason for our company and similar users. I would love to talk to these teams (we are a small team at Duke and a health care company).

I can give you some context. 1. Terence Tao's mastodon explains the way this problem was solved does not in itself contribute much. LLMs (and in this case) produce massive, often unintelligible proofs that do not further understanding. It is often that in pursuit of solving these problems, many other discoveries are made. 2. There is a more serious question about scooping. If OAI is using chat data from researchers to make discoveries, essentially every researcher who chats with an LLM can get scooped. You could be 80% of your way to solving a problem, and LLM could solve the remaining 20%, and get all the credit. Years of your work could be scooped in an instant. If you're a PhD student, this is even worse. Here it's a world famous problem. But imagine you're a PhD student, working on your small but extremely career/progression critical problem, and you get scooped by an AI you talk to. No one is even going to care.

1. I know, but that is somewhat irrelevant to my question 2. I am indeed a CS PhD student (well, I am finishing now)

> If OAI is using chat data from researchers to make discoveries, essentially every researcher who chats with an LLM can get scooped

But they make very clear that they do train on this if you do not disable the setting. We can comment on the fact that this is opt out instead of opt in, but this discourse of OAI sniping the solution out of some researchers hands seems to be running on the best case speculation of the researchers having perfectly handled all their chats and discussions with other researchers and the worse case of OAI not having full pipeline control and I think that is an unfair assumption.

We know they are training on private chats. It's listed in the ToS.

Tristian's allegations are much more serious than academic slap-fighting. If what he suggests is true, every academic using AI is going to get scooped. Yes AI can do non-trivial work, but the situation is that you could be a PhD student 90% of a way to make a major breakthrough. Then OAI scoops up your chats, dumps ten million tokens, and claims it for itself.

And you can say goodbye to your PhD at that point.

Your account is 21 days old.

And yours is almost four years old, around the age of which most begin to learn about the follies of needless gatekeeping, no?

Don't you dare go off and look at my account age you silly goose.

7 days old.

This is an astroturfing campaign.

Many academics and grad students I know have closed source their in progress work, and started being really careful about what they chat with LLMs (or using local ones) because of the drama around this. No one wants four years of their life getting sniped by ten million dollars worth of tokens.

Or, if you're using, you need to push a pre-print relatively soon after AI help.

It would not be difficult to write a pipeline to remove 99% of low quality posts, especially about specific subjects. It would be very easy to identify accounts as researchers based on their chat logs.

It's probably AI coded and hallucinated many things. That drumming up the importance of a minor thing is a real tell. Another hallucination - it hasn't found any video APIs (despite statements that it has and uploaded it). It has video metadata.

It's that mix of dense, impressive sounding jargon, but even scanning across it raises glaring problems. Like, if you have 4.5 billion videos on HF, and it's 289GB, it's about 60 bytes per video. Checking the column fields as well, there doesn't seem to be any video files*.

There's an `is_video` column, perhaps containing a lot of 0's

More directly, there simply aren't any video files uploaded. It's just parquet files, which contain no video columns (I'm not even sure if it supports it).

Seems the expectation is the purchaser uses the info/parameters in the 289gb file to decide which videos to download, then uses the /v1/video/info endpoint to download individual videos.

The first immediate smell is that if you have 4.5B rows and 289GB in data, you have ~60 bytes per row.