4 ms·
Human learning and machine learning aren't even close to similar and pretending like they are is very stupid.
by tedajax 3y ago
Human learning and machine learning aren't even close to similar and pretending like they are is very stupid.
- krisoft 3y agoThat is not a very well formed argument, is it? You basically state your opinion and then call people who have an oposite opinion names. Let’s try to elevate the conversation: there is a newly published author MrX. His book combines themes from many copyrighted works in a novel way and is a critical and commercial success. There is no allegation of any copyright infringement around the work. Suddenly information comes out that MrX used LLMs heavily in the creation of the book and the LLM was trained on copyrighted works. Do you think MrX owes licencing fees to those other authors? And which ones? All the ones in the training set? Just the ones which has thematic/stylistic similarity to his work? How come those thematic/stylistic similarities only matter if MrX used an LLM and don’t matter if he used his own head?
- tedajax 3y agoYes MrX owes licensing fees, full stop. Die mad about it
- bart_spoon 3y agoFeel free to expound on the important differences
- tedajax 3y agoWell for one, human learning actually produces an understanding of the thing.
- bart_spoon 3y agoUnderstanding meaning what?