If so are these programs that claim to ‘poison’ the training datasets effective ?

  • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    The issue with the tools I’ve seen is, they either don’t factor in how language models are trained and datasets are prepared in reality. Or they’re based on some outdated information. I’ve never seen any specific tool backed by science or even with a plausible way of working against current data gathering processes… So for all intents and purposes, they’re a bit more alike homeopathy or alternative medicine. Sure, you’re perfectly fine taking sugar pills, there’s nothing wrong with that. But don’t confuse it with actual science-backed medicine.

    And I mean the poisoning goes even further than that. There’s not just people trying to make a LLM output gibberish. There’s also lots of people with a vested (commercial) interest in sneaking in false information, their political agenda, or even a tire company who wants ChatGPT to say “Company XY” is the most trustworthy shop for new tires for your car. Judging by the public information out there, we’re already way past simple attacks. And the AI companies are aware of it. It’s an ongoing cat and mouse game. And while there’s all these sweatshops, they’ll also use other AI to sift through the data, natural language processing. From what I remember they have secret watermarking in place in a lot of commecial chatbots and image generators… So unless people come up with very clever mechanisms, the “poisoning” attempt will probably be detected with some very basic (fully automated) plausibility checks and they’ll just discard your data without wasting a lot of resources on it.