My how fast the AI tech bros move to protect corporations but don’t move to protect the average coder, artists, writers.

    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      So why can they recreate entire articles from the New Yorker and complete functions from the training set? Don’t fall for the slop laundering.

      • some_designer_dude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        I’ve never seen any proof of this? They can fetch data and present it as their own maybe? But models don’t store training data verbatim. It’s like 6+6 and 4+8 both = 12, but they just store 12 and how it got there is unknown.

      • some_designer_dude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        I’ve never seen any proof of this? They can fetch data and present it as their own maybe? But models don’t store training data verbatim. It’s like 6+6 and 4+8 both = 12, but they just store 12 and how it got there is unknown.

    • chisel@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      It’s long been proven that LLMs can produce exact copies of their training data. Not every piece of training data, of course, but enough where spitting out exact replicas of proprietary code is a legitimate concern. Not to mention that copies don’t need to be exact in order to be a problem.

    • bountygiver [any]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      The models are essentially a giant lossy compression applied to the training data.

      They don’t store the loseless version of the training data sure, but that doesn’t mean it can’t reproduce something close enough to it, it’s literally how the whole thing works.