zlacker

>>jnord+(OP)
Earlier this year I thought that rare proprietary knowledge and IP was a safe haven from AI, since LLMs can only scrub public data.

Then it dawned on me how many companies are deeply integrating Copilot into their everyday workflows. It's the perfect Trojan Horse.

>>Oarch+65
Using an LLM on data does not ingest that data into the training corpus. LLMs don’t “learn” from the information they operate on, contrary to what a lot of people assume.

None of the mainstream paid services ingest operating data into their training sets. You will find a lot of conspiracy theories claiming that companies are saying one thing but secretly stealing your data, of course.

>>Aurorn+S5
Wrong, buddy.

Many of the top AI services use human feedback to continuously apply "reinforcement learning" after the initial deployment of a pre-trained model.

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

>>popalc+te
RLHF is a training step.

Inference (what happens when you use an LLM as a customer) is separate from training.

Inference and training are separate processes. Using an LLM doesn’t train it. That’s not what RLHF means.

>>Aurorn+zf
I am aware, I've trained my own models. You're being obtuse.

The big companies - take Midjourney, or OpenAI, for example - take the feedback that is generated by users, and then apply it as part of the RLHF pass on the next model release, which happens every few months. That's why they have the terms in their TOS that allow them to do that.