dalle-2-preview VS lm-human-preferences

We believe that many decisions about our defaults and hard bounds should be made collectively, and while practical implementation is a challenge, we aim to include as many perspectives as possible. As a starting point, we’ve sought external input on our technology in the form of red teaming. We also recently began soliciting public input on AI in education (one particularly important context in which our technology is being deployed).

From this OpenAI document:

It's also of note that you can't sell a game using this method, as Dalle-2's terms of service prevent use in commercial projects. It's hard to justify rate of return considering you can only ever give it away for free, and even in that case there are some uncertain legal elements regarding copyright and the images that are used to train the dataset.

On their GitHub https://github.com/openai/dalle-2-preview/blob/main/system-card.md I can only see references to v1.

"b) Exploration of the bolded part of OpenAI's comment "Each generated image includes a signature in the lower right corner, with the goal of indicating when DALL·E 2 helped generate a certain image." (source)." (source link: https://github.com/openai/dalle-2-preview/blob/main/system-c...)

I feel the DALL-E 2 watermark signature could be a seed or something.

DALL-E's docs for example mention it can output whole copyrighted logos and characters[1] and understands it's possible to generate human faces that are bear the likeness of those in the training data. We've also seen people recently critique Stable Diffusion's output for attempting to recreate artists' signatures that came from the commercial trained data.

That said by a certain point the kinks will be ironed out and likely skirt around such issues by only incorporating/manipulating just enough to be considered fair use and creative transformation.

[1] "The model can generate known entities including trademarked logos and copyrighted characters." https://github.com/openai/dalle-2-preview/blob/main/system-c...

Some types of content were purposely excluded from the training dataset(s) (source).

Lest you think that that sounds like a too galaxy-brained possibility, it has already happened at OpenAI (scroll down to "Bugs can optimize for bad behavior"), just with a model that was very far from being capable enough to be dangerous.

Found relevant code at https://github.com/openai/lm-human-preferences + all code implementations here

That's why, when they're serious, they use RL for finetuning from human preferences (would be hilarious if this attempt to solve the terrible bias you take to be evidence of AGI threat ends up creating a Woke Singleton itself, btw); it's a powerful general approach, and I see no sign of it being applied here.

The kind of measures they are taking, like simply deleting wholesale anything problematic, don't really have a '-1'.

But amusingly, exactly that did happen in one of their GPT experiments! https://openai.com/blog/fine-tuning-gpt-2/

Code for https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.08593 found: https://github.com/openai/lm-human-preferences