Retractions do happen regularly. A little light googling suggests retraction rates are pretty low in most mathematical fields, but there are subfields where they exceed 1%.
I don’t know if the <0.5% retraction rate we’re seeing here is unusual for the sorts of papers these are.
And that’s kind of my point. I read the article and I still have no idea. I doubt the author of the article knows either. Which makes me think that they had an agenda going into the whole affair.
There are definitely issues with what OpenAI is doing. I’m the last to defend them.
That said, a small correction rate after uploading a bunch of preprints just doesn’t seem like news. An article that headlines with that, but doesn’t even bother to tell us what the normal rate of corrections and withdrawals is for humans really feels like propaganda to me.
I would really like to live in a world where we don’t reward this sort of “journalism” with attention.
I think of Mistral as primarily making models for API use that you can use in all sorts of places. I didn’t even know they had an app. I think the app is probably mostly intended as an easy way to try out the models, not their main business.
Honestly, this is nothing new.
Listening to ChatGPT is a solid improvement over listening to Tucker Carlson.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not good! I don’t exactly trust the Sam Altmans of the world. But this is the same circus, different clowns.
this is all done with custom models by individuals.
This is really important for people to understand.
Powerful open weight models are already out there. Anyone can download them and run them. There is no possibility for government control of AI content without North Korean style internet controls.
Politicians and corporations will absolutely start trying to push for more controls. They will tell you to “think of the children” and they will use this to take power for themselves, knowing full-well that they can’t actually meaningfully prevent this from happening. We need people to understand that the push for control here has nothing to do with morality or protecting anyone.
When I saw the headline, I was wondering about this specifically. This may make this service not super useful.
My experience with AI security reviews is that they’re fantastic at finding faults, but they always find a list of things to complain about. If there are no real/serious faults they’ll start finding things that kind of have the same shape as a security issue, but really aren’t if you dig into them. I’ve regularly had an LLM generate a list of 10-15 issues ranging in severity from “nits” to “critical” where none of them were actual issues.
Periodic reviews seem like they could get annoying really quickly, becoming more of a maintenance burden than a help.