cududa
Joined 14 years ago
Karma
3,921
Submissions
1,216
Member since
Mar 12
Recent submissions
Comment · 11 days ago
It’d be absurd to believe nobody tested these, and that no individuals involved in relevant standards bodies were aware of this weakness.
Comment · 28 days ago
The firewall toggles flipping on and off immediately following a device firmware reset at the Apple Store shouldn’t happen.
Comment · 28 days ago
I mean it’s normal to you when the GitHub desktop app shows an expired certificate and pops “Always Accept” in place of “Never Accept”?
Comment · 28 days ago
Services like ProactiveHarvesting and AppleIntelligenceReportingSELFIngestor automatically install and run on Macs Without iCloud, Siri, or Apple Intelligence setup
Comment · 1 month ago
Yep. It occurred to me a few days ago that the OAI TOS only says “Input” as what you provide “Output” as what you receive, Input and Output collectively as “Content.” and they won't "train" on your content. But they can retain content for safety evaluations and debugging.
What's neat about "safety evaluations" in LLM parlance is apparently encountering any novel information constitutes a "safety event" that can result in new reinforcement learning data... This anthropic 2022 paper that basically describes how it's a perpetual information siphoning machine with a cute little graphic https://arxiv.org/html/2212.08073 - they publish their "constitution". OpenAI has a "model spec" they somewhat regularly update that I suspect is their equivalent process. I suspect we've all been unwittingly advancing their models capabilities..
This Dec 2025 Google paper "A Practical Guide to Generating Synthetic Data With Differential Privacy" spells it out pretty clearly - the focus is on "privacy" - nothing about protecting the user's IP or unique knowledge/ insights.. https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03238v1
In OpenAI's case it seems to essentially generating synthetic training tuples from {prompt, chain-of-thought, answer} or scores on the chain of thought for reinforcement learning.
It would appear opting out of "Improve the model for everyone" didn't actually mean what we thought it meant.
Comment · 1 month ago
The open models let you see there thinking and the models seem to be succinctly/ compactly representing the actual underlying concepts they're working on in some symbolic way or another. But they definitely represent the meat, bone, and marrow of the task
Comment · 1 month ago
Kind of shocked nobody is calling out at the flag at the bottom of the announcement saying that it's not eligible for Zero Data Retention and it's currently pretty nebulous what the "Don't train on my conversations" toggle means, as the TOS classifies "conversations" as "user visible input and outputs" - says nothing about thinking, etc.
I suspect anything you make in these, the thinking traces or "safety evaluations" of the content allows whatever you build to become RL or eventual pre-training data.
Comment · 1 month ago
They likely train on logs.
Comment · 2 months ago
Oh it fucking loves its “product owner” bullshit.
A .github/CODEOWNERS file seems to help when it’s going down that path, but I don’t like to indulge it..
Comment · 2 months ago
I mean I still regularly use 5.3 spark (the cerebrus model) that comes with my sub to do rapid reviews of 5.6's work and it finds oodles of problems in about a minute.