3 ms·
>What you’re saying here wouldn’t be illegal. What would be illegal would be for such an LLM to then sell the movie verbatim which is what ChatGPT does. NYT wa
by logicchains 3y ago
>What you’re saying here wouldn’t be illegal. What would be illegal would be for such an LLM to then sell the movie verbatim which is what ChatGPT does.
NYT want it to be illegal for LLMs to be trained on copyright works (unless they pay for a license), even if they were not going to reproduce copyright works in operation.
>humans as less than human and actually, totally, just statistical models
In what way are humans "more than" statistical models? The human brain and a sufficiently large transformer are mathematically equivalent in terms of what functions they're able to compute.
- RandomLensman 3y agoHow is equivalence of ability to calculate functions relevant (also, citation needed)? It doesn't imply equivalence of what is actually happening.
- logicchains 3y agoCitation for neural networks being universal approximators (able to approximate any function): https://www.deep-mind.org/2023/03/26/the-universal-approximation-theorem/ https://www.deep-mind.org/2023/03/26/the-universal-approxima... . I don't have a citation for the human brain, but if it's not then that would make it less powerful than an LLM, mathematically speaking. If human consciousness can be modelled as mathematical function (which it can if we don't assume anything supernatural), then it can potentially be approximated to an arbitrarily high degree by an LLM.
- RandomLensman 3y agoThanks. Approximator, not calculator, though. Can make a difference (which can also lead to different mathematical and physical capabilities). But comes back to my point: because hypothetically one system might be able to approximate another system doesn't mean that it will happen practically that one system is equivalent to the other. Whether or not depends on the properties of the system to be approximated (leaving aside that not everything is a mathematical function).