2 ms·
This isn't how a language model works. It's SO frustrating that even on HN people still fall for this naive and incorrect analysis. Pasting bits I've said befo
by nl 4y ago
This isn't how a language model works.
It's SO frustrating that even on HN people still fall for this naive and incorrect analysis. Pasting bits I've said before on this topic:
Language models do not work like this. They can copy content but usually that's for something like the GPL language text.
Generally they work on a character by character basis predicting what is the most likely character to appear next.
This very rarely results in copying text, and almost never rare text.
Mechanically it has learnt both syntax of language and how concepts relate. So when it starts generating it makes sentence that are syntactically valid but also make sense in terms of concepts.
That's really different to just combining bits of sentences, and it gives rise to abilities you wouldn't expect in something just cutting and pasting bits of sentences. For example, few shot learning is mostly driven by its conceptual understanding and can't be done by something with no way to relate concepts.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tyingq 4y agoIf this were true, then they would have trained it on all of MS's proprietary source code too.
- nl 4y agoIt is true. And that doesn't follow at all.
- tyingq 4y agoThere's enough examples of it regurgitating longish verbatim code out there, and not just comments or GPL license text. If they are comfortable training it on code that isn't licensed for unrestricted copy/paste, I don't personally understand why they can't train it on their own code that's also not licensed for that. Edit: They even added 'q rsqrt,' to their banned word list to squelch an example of long verbatim code passages. Basically, it's not that I don't understand your explanation. It's that it does emit long passages of unchanged code in practice, for whatever real-world reason.