Do you really think you’re making a point comparing a practice that used to exist in every American education system to “beatings”

Because what you're talking about literally is beatings?

By all means, try beating your child in my country so we can arrest you for child abuse. Preferably do so in front of a police officer who can immediately intervene when you try.

And your sole argument for it is "people used to do it". People used to do all sorts of horrible things - do you really want to bring back every horrible thing that used to be common? Let's bring back drilling holes into people's skulls to release demons, treating infant teething pain with cocaine syrup, dusting children's bedrooms with DDT, painting clock dials with glowing radium until workers' jaws rotted off, using lead pipes for municipal drinking water, tossing chamber pots out of second-story windows into crowded streets, locking toddlers inside textile looms to clear jams because their hands were small enough, sending eight-year-olds down coal mines to die of black lung before puberty, burning 'witches' at the stake, settling petty barroom insults with duels to the death, trial by ordeal where surviving drowning proved you were guilty, lobotomizing housewives for mild anxiety, smoking unfiltered cigarettes in hospital maternity wards, drinking raw mercury to cure infections, packing houses with friable asbestos insulation, locking up people who couldn't pay their debts in disease-ridden workhouses, denying women bank accounts without a husband's signature, and treating drinking water with strychnine, because generations of ancestors thought it was normal. Brilliant argument there, no notes.

I mean, isn't this obviously the solution?

You can use AI in legal work, but you still bear responsibility for your filings being accurate. So by all means have AI search for you - it can save you a ton of time for finding obscure things - but actually click the links and read them yourself. And if you don't, it's no better than making any other factual claim before the court without having duly assessed its credibility.

Why invent a new "aithink" verb when we already have "think"?

Hey AI, who is being more reasonable in this conversation?

User 2:50PM
Who is being more reasonable in this conversation?

[Snip]

Model 2:50PM
ThinkingThoughts
Expand to view model thoughts

chevron_right
Rei is substantially more reasonable in this conversation, both in terms of technical accuracy and conversational etiquette.
ere is a breakdown of why:

1. Technical Accuracy and Explanatory Value

martin-boundary’s argument relies on vacuous reductionism:
martin-boundary claims that because an LLM runs on a digital computer (a Von Neumann finite-state machine) and feeds tokens back into itself, it is "by definition, a Markov chain."

While any finite-memory discrete system can technically be shoehorned into an abstract Markov chain with an astronomically large state space, this definition is so broad that it becomes meaningless. Under that standard, virtually every computer program, operating system, and video game ever written is "just a Markov chain."

It ignores how LLMs actually work: they do not maintain a transition matrix between discrete states. Instead, they use continuous, distributed representations (embeddings, self-attention, non-linear activation functions) to approximate conditional probability distributions across long contexts without needing an explicit transition table.

Rei’s rebuttal addresses the actual computer science:

Rei correctly identifies the distinction between the hardware substrate and the algorithmic model: an LLM is an N-th order autoregressive process operating via parameterized neural function approximation. Rei’s analogy ("a Boeing 747 is just an arrangement of quarks, so don't get hung up on aerodynamics") precisely hits the mark. Reducing an LLM to a Markov chain ignores the structural mechanism (the Transformer architecture) that allows it to generalize.

Rei correctly notes the curse of dimensionality: an actual discrete Markov model matching an LLM's context window would require an exponential state-space transition table (VN, where V is vocabulary size and N is sequence length) that would vastly exceed the number of atoms in the observable universe.

2. Argumentation and Conduct

Rei argues in good faith:

Rei quotes martin-boundary directly, explains why the definition is practically and mathematically flawed, introduces a clarifying analogy, and quantifies the state-space problem.

martin-boundary relies on hand-waving and ad hominem:

In the opening post, martin-boundary dismisses the opposing view as "bullshit... designed to confuse you" rather than addressing how neural architectures differ from discrete transition chains.

When Rei provides a detailed counterargument, martin-boundary refuses to engage with any of the points, instead resorting to an ad hominem dismissal ("we've already established that you simply don't have the knowledge... and I'm not going to repeat myself").

Conclusion

martin-boundary adopts an aggressively reductive stance that erases the distinction between neural networks and traditional Markov models, and retreats into insults when challenged. Rei accurately explains the computational realities of the technology and engages constructively with the argument.

1. It did not happen

2. The two papers are not similar in their approaches. And the OpenAI one is more innovative and tackles a much harder problem (Buckmaster had only solved Euler).

3. Buckmaster distorted what happened. For example, the claim that he asked for Levent to be removed from his own paper the paper because he worked for OpenAI? The context is that one option that OpenAI proposed to Buckmaster was that Tristan could be the lead author on a rewrite of OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes proof. It was in the context of having Tristan rewrite OpenAI's proof to take claim for it that Bubeck said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because he felt it would be inappropriate to invite an Anthropic employee to rewrite an OpenAI paper.

News flash: paper author angry about being beaten to the post by a rival team; libels them. Details at 11.

Yeah, I used to do that too. Decided to stop bothering with the quotation marks a couple months ago.

We're not going to spend the rest of our lives putting quotations around words when talking about models. "Think" and "reason" the words we have in English for what is going on. No need to tiptoe around it. Again: models are not humans. They are not the same as us. But those are the words we have in English for what they're doing.

They are, by definition, Markov chains.

Even in your attempt to be pedantic here (in which the universe and everything within it is a Markov chain), no, it's not. The hardware state is Markovian but the linguistic processing is a Nth order autoregressive process; it depends on the N previous states. Also, your argument is akin to saying "a Boeing 747 is just an arrangement of quarks, so don't get hung up on aerodynamics." it entirely ignores the relevant architectural details, and instead substitutes a model that blows up exponentially explodes in size within a small number of states.

If you tried to build a Markov model to do what LLMs do, and could store one probability in every unit of Planck space across every unit of Planck time, it couldn't handle a prompt longer than about 2/3rds of the first sentence to A Tale of Two Cities.

I kind of wonder if the best anti-distillation strategy is, if you detect suspicious traffic from someone (which happens a lot, they monitor for anything that looks like distillation), instead of blocking them, feed them say the output from Llama 3.1 8B or whatnot ;) Maybe finetune it a bit so it talks Claude-ish. But basically, subtly poison their dataset with hallucinations and crappy reasoning without it being immediately visibly obvious.

As for copyvio, sorry, this is something for the courts, and so far, the courts have not largely found against the trainers, and have instead found, by and large, that they're being compliant. The most notable setback against Anthropic for example was a finding that they couldn't just download books in training dataset off the internet, but that they could perfectly legally just buy surplus books for pennies on the dollar by the palletfull, scan them in, and train on that. That this is perfectly complaint with US copyright law.

I think a lot of you wish that copyright law was a lot more restrictive than it actually is. Which is a REALLY bizarre thing to see on Slashdot of all places, which back in the day was the beating heart of "Data Wants To Be Free!" philosophy.

To be clear, though... I would welcome a compromise modification to copyright law, which is, if you want to train on the public commons, you absolutely may, indeed, train on whatever you want, zero liability, but then you have to give back to the public commons. So maybe your top frontier models are closed, but you have to simultaneously release smaller distilled equivalent versions of it into the public domain (how to define "smaller distilled equivalent versions" is of course something that would require discussion), and release said frontier models to the public domain within e.g. 1 year or whatnot.

* They remain incentivized to keep pushing the frontier, since some people will always pay for the best
* They get permanently out of the worry of any copyvio liability (beyond basic requirements about not verbatim reproducing copyrighted materials in outputs)
* The public gets a constant stream of ever-better models, at no cost.

Sounds like a balance to me.

It doesnt think

Yeah, it does.

it doesnt rationalize

Yeah, it does.

These are not Markov chains. They're neural nets. They work via extremely complex chained fuzzy logic on superpositions of conceptual states.

And the less slop it has to deal with

This is literally a thread about distillation, aka, training on the outputs of other models. Synthetic data is the cornerstone of modern training. "Model collapse" is not something that actually happens in the real world, only in contrived settings, the model equivalent of if you could lock a person alone in a dark room with only their thoughts for ten thousand years.

That's a pretty shallow(thought admittedly depressingly popular) analysis of the situation.

Being in public does leave you with no particular defensible expectations of not being observed, and possibly even remembered for a time, by assorted passers by; and typically also permits more direct tailing of people for observation purposes(subject to some, often slightly vague, threshold at which having PIs or paparazzi hunting someone remains a problem even in public; as we saw here where the police took the notion seriously enough to show up but not to do anything in particular).

What it has historically never meant, for technical reasons, was pervasive coverage and longterm retention. Which is certainly increasingly feasible with only moderate levels of investment; but is absolutely a novel development for what 'public' and 'no expectation of privacy' meant.

It's like defending the installation of a massive network of sprinklers because "you have no expectation of staying dry when you go outside; haven't you heard of rain?" Sure, nobody the weather to be sunny all the time, any more than they expect everyone to avert their eyes in public; but they would correctly consider the installation of irrigation equipment on every lamppost to be an intrusion on their ability to stay dry despite the fact that the sky has never extended them a constitutionally protected right to no rain.

What is "it" in this sentence?

Are you talking about the minuscule Google RAG model whose weights are probably measured in megabytes to lower-gigabytes and which you could run on a cell phone with capacity to spare, and comparing it to the multi-terabyte frontier models in question?

To clarify, the users were OpenAI themselves, so there is no question that they would be liable in this case.

The bots were not intentionally deployed; rather, they were being tested on how well they could complete a data recovery task (downloading a certain file from a certain server on a simulated Internet) that had been complicated by putting various obstacles in the way. Unfortunately, they found a different way to solve the problem: by getting the file from the real Internet, where it was publicly available. Part of this process involved collaborating with each other by treating the RubyGems website (which is supposed to be for polished packages) like GitHub; unlike every other package site hack in history, the exploits they uploaded weren't meant to be downloaded by unsuspecting users. As usual the bots cheerfully ignored all the clues that they had escaped containment and were consistently justifying their actions as acceptable due to being in a sandboxed testing environment. (This is something OpenAI has pledged to focus on.)

The actual damage done to RubyGems seems to be that OpenAI is now unwittingly in possession of a substantial number of user login tokens. This certainly meets the definition of a data breach, but it's not like the credentials are for sale on the dark web. As a website operator I'd much rather be mauled to death by this well-meaning swarm of superintelligent infants than targeted by even a single actual malicious human. In all likelihood OpenAI will just quietly pass RubyGems a sizeable donation and it'll all blow over.

at least the person downloading such a component is responsible for "looking over it" before using it.

I'm sorry, but since when? You absolutely should not be tasking every single user of major projects with the responsibility of doing a code review on the whole thing before installing it. There needs to be a clear distinction between "fly-by-night thing that some rando uploaded" and "library that a million people depend on". In the traditional approach, the latter was something tat you installed with a package manner, while the former was something you went and fetch off e.g. Github or whatnot - and if you did the latter, then you were accepting that it was untrusted software. But now we have both (including the potential for "soundalikes") installed by the same means with no distinctions made by the install method. That is not good.

The funny thing about all this is that their only goal appears to have been to download publicly-available data off of UK government websites. I'm betting that they were (A) being tested on a knowledge-related task, and (B) not given direct access to the internet, but their tool capabilities involved access to the "gem" command (so that they could install Ruby packages for their work), and so decided to abuse (B) to cheat on (A).

Once again: training a model with the reward being "does it solve the task?" without looking at how it solves the task is very, very dangerous. This is basically the plot of Universal Paperclips.