4 ms·

Making an analogy where you substitute a human being for the LLM is disingenuous to the extreme.

by enneff 3y ago

permo-w 3y ago
why do you think that?
- enneff 3y ago
  Because LLMs are not people. They are nothing like people; not in construction nor behaviour.
  - permo-w 3y ago
    LLMs are built upon neural networks which are modelled upon how brains work can you explain to me specifically how they're different? can you explain to me how they're different to the degree that making an analogy between the two is "disingenuous to the extreme"?
    - TillE 3y ago
      One is a person, the other is a computer program. Legally quite distinct! Note that nobody is even seriously claiming we have an AGI, there's no Star Trek discussion of whether an android is a person. Everyone agrees this is just a computer program.
      - permo-w 3y ago
        are you aware of how neural networks work? and remember that this is simply an illustrative analogy
      - srslack 3y ago
        It doesn't matter if it's a person, or a computer program, or not. This discussion is moot. Is there a substantial reproduction of the works in the output? If not, there's no copyright infringement here. Try reading this legal opinion: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53-5_Gillotte.pdf https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53...
        xdennis 3y ago
        I don't believe it's copyright infringement either, but I don't believe it should be allowed either. It used to be that when people bought a piece of land they owned that land from the center of the Earth to the end of the Universe. When planes were invented the laws on who owned the skies had to change or planes wouldn't work. It's the same here, but in reverse. If LLMs aren't prohibited from learning without permission then people will be forced to hide their works.
        NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        Did the trainers illegally access and obtain copyrighted works which are ordinarily protected? I see multiple questions raised by this suit. Were copyrighted works being illegally stored and distributed by certain sources? Of course they are. Were these illegal sources accessed by the trainers and used to obtain copyrighted works which are not otherwise available for no charge on the public Internet? Are substantial and reproducible copies of these copyrighted works retained within the bowels of the LLM neural nets? Is the LLM able to answer prompts in a way that it would never be able to do, had the copyrighted material not been ingested? I see the lawsuit addressing several questions at once, and so even a resolution of this suit itself will leave questions unanswered and needing to be kicked upstairs to higher jurisdictions.
    - enneff 3y ago
      The differences between a a human being and a computer are too numerous to list. I don’t even know why you need to ask the question. Let me ask another question to point out the absurdity of yours: Human beings have more in common with a bacterium than a software program. Can you tell me specifically how humans are not bacteria?
      - permo-w 3y ago
        analogies are not descriptions of the things themselves, otherwise they would not be analogies, would they? now remember that this is an analogy. re-read my comments in this light and perhaps we can continue this conversation in a more grounded and reasonable manner however, I'll be frank: have you studied neural networks? if you haven't, it's very difficult to take you seriously on this
        enneff 3y ago
        Now you’re just being condescending. I did read your comments and I know what an analogy is. Consider that there is a different perspective to yours that can validly view your analogy as absurd. Yes I have studied neural nets and have a good understanding of their function. I am still not sure how, despite their development being inspired by animal brains, you can liken an LLM to an actual person. There are so many vast differences. Do you really want me to explain specially what they are? Surely, since both you and I are so familiar with the subject matter, that is unnecessary. If we were taking about an AGI then this would be an entirely different conversation.
        permo-w 3y ago
        your argument was predicated upon my comment being factually inaccurate, not analogously poor. I merely listed some leading questions analogising the ability of human brains to absorb, contextualise and emit copyrighted information to an LLM's ability to do all of those same things. you created a weaker position to attack which was that LLMs are the same as humans if you want to discuss whether it is a poor analogy or not, I'm all for that, but the passage you've chosen to go down is to act as if it were not an analogy at all, which—to borrow a phrase—is disingenuous to the extreme
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - xdennis 3y ago
      > LLMs are built upon neural networks which are modelled upon how brains work You are confused. Neural networks are inspired by how brains work, but they do not actually simulate brains. Airplanes are also inspired by how birds work, but (presumably) you don't think that bird laws should apply to airplanes. > can you explain to me how they're different to the degree that making an analogy between the two is "disingenuous to the extreme"? It's disingenuous because you don't believe that either. If you think that LLMs are just like human brains, and should be allowed to learn from books the same as people, then presumably you also believe they are entitled to all other human rights: to vote, to live, &c. If you operate an LLM and you shut it down then that's murder and you belong in jail.
      - permo-w 3y ago
        can you point to the part of my comment where I suggested anything about how laws should work? what do you think an analogy is? do you think an analogy is something where the thing itself and its metaphor are "just like" each other, or do they share attributes for illustrative purposes? would you agree that LLMs and humans share the attributes of information retention and contextual reproduction?
      - salawat 3y ago
        >Airplanes are also inspired by how birds work, but (presumably) you don't think that bird laws should apply to airplanes. Not really. Only if if talking an ornithopter. Otherwise they're based off Bernolli's equations. >You are confused. Neural networks are inspired by how brains work, but they do not actually simulate brains. Non-sequitur. They never claimed it was simulating a human brain, merely that it was engaging in an analogus process of information encoding/decoding.

Making an analogy where you substitute a human being for the LLM is disingenuous to the extreme.

by enneff 3y ago

Making an analogy where you substitute a human being for the LLM is disingenuous to the extreme.

permo-w 3y ago

why do you think that?

enneff 3y ago
Because LLMs are not people. They are nothing like people; not in construction nor behaviour.
- permo-w 3y ago
  LLMs are built upon neural networks which are modelled upon how brains work can you explain to me specifically how they're different? can you explain to me how they're different to the degree that making an analogy between the two is "disingenuous to the extreme"?
  - TillE 3y ago
    One is a person, the other is a computer program. Legally quite distinct! Note that nobody is even seriously claiming we have an AGI, there's no Star Trek discussion of whether an android is a person. Everyone agrees this is just a computer program.
    - permo-w 3y ago
      are you aware of how neural networks work? and remember that this is simply an illustrative analogy
    - srslack 3y ago
      It doesn't matter if it's a person, or a computer program, or not. This discussion is moot. Is there a substantial reproduction of the works in the output? If not, there's no copyright infringement here. Try reading this legal opinion: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53-5_Gillotte.pdf https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53...
      - xdennis 3y ago
        I don't believe it's copyright infringement either, but I don't believe it should be allowed either. It used to be that when people bought a piece of land they owned that land from the center of the Earth to the end of the Universe. When planes were invented the laws on who owned the skies had to change or planes wouldn't work. It's the same here, but in reverse. If LLMs aren't prohibited from learning without permission then people will be forced to hide their works.
      - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        Did the trainers illegally access and obtain copyrighted works which are ordinarily protected? I see multiple questions raised by this suit. Were copyrighted works being illegally stored and distributed by certain sources? Of course they are. Were these illegal sources accessed by the trainers and used to obtain copyrighted works which are not otherwise available for no charge on the public Internet? Are substantial and reproducible copies of these copyrighted works retained within the bowels of the LLM neural nets? Is the LLM able to answer prompts in a way that it would never be able to do, had the copyrighted material not been ingested? I see the lawsuit addressing several questions at once, and so even a resolution of this suit itself will leave questions unanswered and needing to be kicked upstairs to higher jurisdictions.
  - enneff 3y ago
    The differences between a a human being and a computer are too numerous to list. I don’t even know why you need to ask the question. Let me ask another question to point out the absurdity of yours: Human beings have more in common with a bacterium than a software program. Can you tell me specifically how humans are not bacteria?
    - permo-w 3y ago
      analogies are not descriptions of the things themselves, otherwise they would not be analogies, would they? now remember that this is an analogy. re-read my comments in this light and perhaps we can continue this conversation in a more grounded and reasonable manner however, I'll be frank: have you studied neural networks? if you haven't, it's very difficult to take you seriously on this
      - enneff 3y ago
        Now you’re just being condescending. I did read your comments and I know what an analogy is. Consider that there is a different perspective to yours that can validly view your analogy as absurd. Yes I have studied neural nets and have a good understanding of their function. I am still not sure how, despite their development being inspired by animal brains, you can liken an LLM to an actual person. There are so many vast differences. Do you really want me to explain specially what they are? Surely, since both you and I are so familiar with the subject matter, that is unnecessary. If we were taking about an AGI then this would be an entirely different conversation.
        permo-w 3y ago
        your argument was predicated upon my comment being factually inaccurate, not analogously poor. I merely listed some leading questions analogising the ability of human brains to absorb, contextualise and emit copyrighted information to an LLM's ability to do all of those same things. you created a weaker position to attack which was that LLMs are the same as humans if you want to discuss whether it is a poor analogy or not, I'm all for that, but the passage you've chosen to go down is to act as if it were not an analogy at all, which—to borrow a phrase—is disingenuous to the extreme
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - xdennis 3y ago
    > LLMs are built upon neural networks which are modelled upon how brains work You are confused. Neural networks are inspired by how brains work, but they do not actually simulate brains. Airplanes are also inspired by how birds work, but (presumably) you don't think that bird laws should apply to airplanes. > can you explain to me how they're different to the degree that making an analogy between the two is "disingenuous to the extreme"? It's disingenuous because you don't believe that either. If you think that LLMs are just like human brains, and should be allowed to learn from books the same as people, then presumably you also believe they are entitled to all other human rights: to vote, to live, &c. If you operate an LLM and you shut it down then that's murder and you belong in jail.
    - permo-w 3y ago
      can you point to the part of my comment where I suggested anything about how laws should work? what do you think an analogy is? do you think an analogy is something where the thing itself and its metaphor are "just like" each other, or do they share attributes for illustrative purposes? would you agree that LLMs and humans share the attributes of information retention and contextual reproduction?
    - salawat 3y ago
      >Airplanes are also inspired by how birds work, but (presumably) you don't think that bird laws should apply to airplanes. Not really. Only if if talking an ornithopter. Otherwise they're based off Bernolli's equations. >You are confused. Neural networks are inspired by how brains work, but they do not actually simulate brains. Non-sequitur. They never claimed it was simulating a human brain, merely that it was engaging in an analogus process of information encoding/decoding.