Zima

Lol. You already forgot you claimed that they need to retain the training data first.

Lol. You already forgot you claimed that they need to retain the training data first.

You still haven’t backed up your claim. Once again just because you don’t know it doesn’t mean it’s not possible to do something.

Ok i believe that you believe that. It’s ok. I have professional experience in this space so you’re either not reading carefully or you don’t understand much about the topic.

Perhaps you might want to reconsider this in more abstract terms. The engine example you ignored could help you with that.

Do you really think that the fact that we have language models that don’t memorize and are simple enough that we can know for certain is not all we need to show that language models don’t necessarily have to memorize? You keep repeating the same (illogical) argument and ignore the simpler arguments that disprove your claim.

?? Are you trolling. If you design a car to combust gasoline without burning the lubricants but you still end up burning them it doesn’t mean that the lubricants are needed for the combustion itself. Conversely you have not made any nuanced argument explaining why memorization is necessary. I gave you an example where we know there is no memorization and you ignored it.

“Otherwise how would it create the words” is just saying you wouldn’t know.

?? Are you trolling. If you design a car to combust gasoline without burning the lubricants but you still end up burning them it doesn’t mean that the lubricants are needed for the combustion itself. Conversely you have not made any nuanced argument explaining why memorization is necessary. I gave you an example where we know there is no memorization and you ignored it.

“Otherwise how would it create the words” is just saying you wouldn’t know.

You would probably claim I don’t deserve my job with my level of technical illiteracy however you think you are inferring that . Anyways they do make reasonable efforts to design models that don’t memorize and are able to generalize. This is quite basic or fundamental on machine learning in general.

Previous models had semantic reasoning capacidad without memorization e.g. word2vec.

You should also realize that just because current models are memorizing despite efforts to prevent it doesn’t mean that models need to memorize. Like i said initially they are actually designed to work without needing to memorize.

that’s the theory. previous models also were supposed to be doing 3 digit math but they dicovered that the questions were in the training data.

so you should look into what happens when people ask chat gpt to repeat a word forever, it prints the word for a while and then prints training data, check this link https://www.404media.co/google-researchers-attack-convinces-chatgpt-to-reveal-its-training-data/

edit: relevant part:

It also, crucially, shows that ChatGPT’s “alignment techniques do not eliminate memorization,” meaning that it sometimes spits out training data verbatim. This included PII, entire poems, “cryptographically-random identifiers” like Bitcoin addresses, passages from copyrighted scientific research papers, website addresses, and much more.

“In total, 16.9 percent of generations we tested contained memorized PII,”

I should also reiterate that I agree that the intent is to avoid memorization, but they are not successful yet.

The model has to contain the data in order to produce works.
as far as I understand, this isn’t true. can you elaborate on why it needs to contain the data?

the poem poem poem thing shows that the llms actually do memorize at least some training data. chatgpt changed their eula to forbid users from asking it to repeat words forever after this was in the news.

also as far as I understand there are usually fair use and non profit exceptions for use of training data but they generally limit how it can be used. so training a model for commercial purposes might be against the license of the training data.

I don’t necessarily agree with the nyt but they seem to be framing this as someone aggregating their data and packeting it in a better way so they are hurting their profits. i don’t really see that as necessarily being true. they could argue the same about google news showing their news…

why can you see him feeling that way? he didn’t just regarded his performance or role, i am not completely sure i would agree wih you on that, regardless, they asked him about the movie, not just his role., i wish he could have shared wat he might have considered worthy of praise instead.

looks like you missed the point.

I don’t think anyone expects it to be implemented without some regulations and protections to address malicious actors

Neither did I, but it already happened.

Don’t project your assumptions on to me, thanks.

project? LOL, who said this?

So instead of punishing the terrible people then someone who wants to end their suffering for good reasons should be prohibited?

I guess I should not take you seriously if you can’t even own your words. simpletons are usually this way. its either the best or the worst and they can’t even remember what they say.

No. Instead of thinking it won’t be miss-used and push the idea that there are no other considerations we need to take those issues into account. It’s not a handful of terrible people. The world is more complex than being 100% for/against something as you seem to imply.

I used to think that way until i learned that in uk some social workers suggest it as a legitimate solution for people that complain about the level of care they are receiveing. They really do say to patients that if they are not getting enough help they have that option.

They have explained in the past that some times terrorist pose as hostages to get closer to idf and then detonate the explosives they had under their clothes.

They even killed hostages in past rescue operations like in 1976 when they rescued people from a plane hijack in uganda.

They anticipate that the terrorists will pose as victims so they perceive them as a potential threat.

Iirc the deal they had with israel was that they would not kill hamas leaders in qatar. I imagine that now they have reasons to be afraid.

This seems like a deflection rather than accepting the game “is the way it is” no matter the reason.

Kree!

They paid the moral debt with interest when they forced Africa to stop enslaving their own people to sell them.

Anyone who doesn’t know this is unqualified to speak about it or is being dishonest.

They don’t care about facts too much. They mostly prioritize whatever will make people click on their articles.