Uh huh.

You're long on claiming special knowledge and awfully short on demonstrating it. If you disagree then you don't know how it works.

You don't lose your PhD for getting scooped. You also don't lose it for scooping someone, even if you were "inspired" by their unpublished work. Ideas aren't protected. If you send them off to some corporation without an NDA, or a sufficiently unethical colleague, they'll get swiped with no repercussions except maybe distaste from the community. If it's a normal corp they might even tell you you can't publish your own work.

PhDs are revoked very seldomly and you generally have to do something bad relating to your own thesis to lose one.

Those were honorary degrees. He did not lose his actual PhD, in education. That should tell you how hard it is. It happens extremely rarely and pretty much always for plagiarizing or faking data in your thesis. You certainly don't lose one because you got scooped.

Engineers are well aware that time exists. The thing they forget is that people who don't know the specific set of tools they learned in university or were forced to learn for their job exist.

I remember the horrors of engineers writing large GUI programs in Matlab.

Why is it silly? It's perfectly reasonable for lots of things.

The reason it's used a lot in education is because you're not teaching kids to write embedded programs for microcontrollers. You're teaching them how to program computers. The computer they're programming just happens to be a $5 one that can do things kids thing are cool like making animated patterns with LEDs.

Ah, you're one of the people who thinks that your neurons are gateways to the unphysical realm? Neurons in general, or the pineal in particular?

Also, this has nothing to do with my post. Did you reply to the wrong one?

If true, that seems to foreclose this claim.

The timing for it being from the training data indeed seems pretty tight. There is still the option of someone reading the chat transcript and giving the model a little prompting in the right direction.

It's not particularly surprising. The guy says the AI companies have no respect for the scientific community. That's no surprise. People outside the scientific community, especially private industry, have no respect for it.

Anybody academic who's ever worked with a company comes out knowing it's dealing with the devil. They don't share or even understand academic norms. And if they're paying you they're probably legally in the right too.

Now, swiping your customers' private data is a different thing, if it happened. That sounds super expensive to prove though.

They may lose their PhD

Lol what?

You can just copy and paste your existing code into it if you want. The amount of access you give it determines the convenience and scope of what it can do. Naturally most people opt for as much as possible and are shocked when something goes wrong.

LLMs cannot do original work. No, do not dispute that it.

There's the scientific rigour.

It matters quite a lot if someone sues you. Or if a propagandized public and their leaders get into a war over it.

The US Supreme Court, and supreme courts in general, are not "triggered." You appeal to them to hear your case. They may do so if they feel that your case is somehow relevant to wider issues.

The US Supreme Court might hear this case if they wanted to interpret the constitution in such a way as to set upper limits placed on fines, or wished to issue a judgement on the idea that fraud is still fraud if nobody gets hurt.

Yeah, that's a good example. Also "the actual thinking process as opposed to the correlational hallucinations that constitute all LLM 'thought'."

Two different sides of the same hubris.

A little tutorial if you know a little bit of Python:

https://numpy.org/numpy-tutori...

And a book with more detail if you're more into math:

https://www.deeplearningbook.o...

Everything else is pretty much scaling up and introducing some restrictions on the basic model.