Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

muskoxnotverydirty t1_je027xh wrote

Yeah it's speculation. I agree.

> There is no evidence that it was tested on training data, at this point.

I think what the author is trying to say is that for some of these tests there's no evidence it was tested on training data but there's no evidence that it wasn't. But then the ability to generalize in the specific domain of the tests depends on that difference. If nothing else, it would be nice for those who publish test results to show how much they knew whether test data was in the training data. It seems to me that they could automate a search within the training set to see if exact wordage is used.

11

bjj_starter t1_je2ckb0 wrote

>If nothing else, it would be nice for those who publish test results to show how much they knew whether test data was in the training data.

Yes, we need this and much more information about how it was actually built, what the architecture is, what the training data was, etc. They're not telling us because trade secrets, which sucks. "Open" AI.

1