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.

You see it in the way you just used the word "you." Model "collapse" is a misnomer. It's drift, which you see in humans in literally everything they do, and you can demonstrate to yourself just by repeatedly generating random numbers and calculating the mean.

Bullshit. The fundamentals of modern AI models can be understood by anyone with a basic knowledge of algebra, which you should have picked up in junior high. They're piecewise linear approximations and use exactly the same equation as the linear regression you learned in high school or first year university. The more advanced stuff is hacky restrictions on that basic design to tone down the model's flexibility and make it easier to fit.

The reason it's hard to understand is because a) people who have no idea what they're talking about try and handwave their way through it; b) people explaining it want you to think it's really, really sophisticated and hard to understand, c) you're using "understand" in an unrealistic way or d) some combination of the above.

I think there is room to argue though, that distillation might violate copyright while training on large volumes of large material does not.

Nope. There is an argument about whether training a model on source material violates copyright or not. Current court decisions in the US say that the training does not, but you must have acquired the material legally in the first place.

Current court decisions in the US say that the raw output of a model is not copyrightable. Never mind that the people doing the distilling have paid for that output so even if it were copyrightable they'd own it.

The only thing happening is violation of terms of service which haven't been tested in court and would (hopefully) fail that test. Otherwise good luck with any software you use to produce anything, compilers included. And that's why these companies are directly lobbying the US government to do, uh, something, about it. They're trying to turn a bug in their business model into a geopolitical issue.

Yup. A better article about it:

https://www.quantamagazine.org...

The "new electrical demand" and "expected growth" are usually based on plans, connection requests, etc. A lot of it is speculative and isn't being built.

You don’t need kW of energy to store or host an image but you do to host AI.

Kilowatts is not a measure of energy. You do need kilowatts to serve many image requests per second. You don't need much energy to serve a single AI request. You do need kilowatts to serve many per second.

To put it in a car analogy, you've decided you don't like Fords so you're just going to say bad stuff about Fords that doesn't even really make sense.