Side tangent, why is fable so weird about questions involving "Welch's method"? Even really trivial ones it'll shut down frequently. CFAR and STFT are both totally fine but Welch's is apparently taboo, it's wild.
In terms of equivalence of suspicion, this is the external inference provider equivalent of getting free steak that was smuggled out of a grocery store inside somebody's pants.
It's a win for me: my code goes into the training data, and my sessions are fed into future training data, making the model stronger at the type of work I do.
I'm curious what the model provider is using the prompt/response pairs for, in that case. They aren't offering a model for free without their name on it for no reason.
LLM needs to become more transparent, not less. Hence, this idea (and trend, possibly) is disgusting.
How can we even possibly verify 'Prompts and completions are retained by the provider and are not used for training...'? What if the training is done, but used internally?
(as a bonus - thinking forever = GLM)
So conforming to CCP political discourse and propaganda is reasonable now?