For the life of me I will never understand the thought process that leads you to say "we don't really know who developed this LLM but I'm going to feed all of my business's data to it"
OpenAI & Anthropic are deeply in bed with US govt, and they need US govt approval before model releases, and all US Companies under various acts need to share data with the govt.
I mean sure there are investors and a little more open-ness, but with the example of Mythos we don't even know if public will get access to the "good" stuff because it's too dangerous.
If your only opinion on trusting these companies more than one based in China is, they are Chinese then good luck, all the best.
The difference is "the various acts" in the US are things that are largely very hard to do, extremely limited in scope, and companies who dispute the government's propriety can (and do) go to court to fight it.
Sure "China bad, US good" is naive, but certainly not more naive than suggesting that companies and individuals have similar rights and protections as each other.
> and they need US govt approval before model releases
This is just not true and it would be a gigantic legal battle to make it true against the model companies' wishes, which is indicative of your entire misunderstanding here.
There was recently some announcement from the US govt itself (after the Mythos announcement) that they were pondering about allowing model releases from now on only after approving them.
So it may not be strictly true for the moment, but it is certainly something that the current US govt can mandate at any time.
The US government just saying they were pondering something is:
1) Far from them actually trying to do it
2) Very, very far from them actually doing it successfully
The US government absolutely cannot "just tell" private entities what products they're allowed to create and sell, and the fact that LLMs are arguably a form of expression will make these particular products extremely hard to regulate – especially as a broad "government checkpoint" on incremental product updates.
In China, it really is as simple as the government deciding that it doesn't like your products and ta-da, you can no longer sell them.
It's beyond naive to act like these are similar in any meaningful sense.
Nonsense, the genie is out of the bottle worldwide and it isn’t going back in, and due to the activity of the current US government America’s standing, is declining most countries going into the future are going to hedge against the United States and whatever it says the good old days (goodwill/the small benefit of the doubt) are gone.
The AI oligarchs have no loyalty and when it comes to making money and they will drop the king at their first opportunity and the king in return will do the same.
But it isn't worthless because the user is paying for that, and third parties are paying for that as well. Unless the input output is completely different, which it's not because you are human, and I bet you have a profession which other humans have, and many other qualities which you share with other humans.
In any case, relying on the chance that the LLM inference won't train on your data because of it's presumably low value is as good a strategy as crossing your fingers or venerating the god of rain. You should be relying on contractual clauses at least when including professional and client data.
You don't need to know who developed the LLM - whether it was Google or OpenAI.
What you need to know is who is the provider for the LLM, and whether their endpoints are zero data retention enabled and opted out of training. OpenRouter gives you an easy way to control this.
This is not entirely true and ignoring a couple of potential attack vectors like Data Poisoning: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.12798
Its of course highly dependant on the use case and the environment, but simply saying that the only important part is to know where the data goes is too simple.
OpenRouter and the provider sign a contract clearly specifying how input data is to be handled.
It's the same way we trust OpenAI to not train on our data if we've opted out although there is no control on whether they can retain the data indefinitely.
I really dont want to be cynic but those guys gave a flying f””” about copyright while scraping the whole internet. How can I ever trust them to respect the oot-out setting. I cant. Thieves be thieves.
And even if they dont train on the data. Who guarantees us, they dont let another AI model analyse all the data, exfiltrating all kinds of intelligence and using it? I only can imagine what OpenAI and Anthropic know….
Scraping the internet isn't a copyright violation. Using it for LLM training is much more transformative than Google and Internet Archive, which are legal.
Your right, scraping is legally protected. It's reproducing verbatim text that's a violation, which is why LLMs still clumsily refuse to produce song lyrics. They are capable of copyright violations and have to be 'aligned' not to get their providers sued.
https://hy.tencent.com/research/hy3