[viraptor]

The training data may not be HP itself. It may be millions of pages summarising/discussing/dissecting HP, which already contain the relationships spelled out better than in the book itself.

[munchler]

That's true, but the model still analyzed all that disparate information and produced a very detailed graph of the relevant relationships. If anyone can show that the graph itself was in the training data, then I would agree that it's not a good test.

[chmod775]

> disparate information

I wouldn't call it disparate when there's about a dozen wikis each spelling it out like this: https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Severus_Snape

[vsnf]

If eat my hat if multiple graphs almost exactly like this one weren’t in the training days. This is like fandoms 101.

[lukan]

The frustrating thing about all this speculations is, that we don't know what was in the training data, but I think we should know that, to have any meaningful discussion about it.

[actionfromafar]

We should. However in this case, isn't it a bit of a stretch to assume they didn't put just about everything in the training data?

[joshspankit]

It would have been fairly trivial to AB test this where the other side is to ask the same question but without all the books in-window.