4 ms·

If I read your code, learn from it and later write something inspired and based on the knowledge I internalized, am I violating your license?

palata 3y ago
I keep reading this argument, and it's hard for me to grasp how people think it makes sense. Why do people keep comparing an LLM to a human? If I copy-paste your code, can I say that my computer "read your code, learned from it and later wrote something inspired and based on the knowledge it internalized"? If I take a photography of a photography, can I sell it as mine, given that my camera "observed the original and learned from it"? My opinion is that if you read my code, learn from it and later write something inspired and based on the knowledge you internalized, then that is fine. Because you are a human. But if you do anything that it functionally an obfuscated copy-paste and pretend that you actually created that, then that is not fine.
- jpambrun 3y ago
  Likewise, it is hard for me to understand how people think your argument makes sense.. I work in ML, although not LLM, and I do understand how they work. I don't think you can reduce LLMs to obfuscating copy-pasters. I believe they are closer to our internalizing process and they can come up with novel solutions to never seen before problems.
  - palata 3y ago
    > Likewise, it is hard for me to understand how people think your argument makes sense.. My argument is "LLMs are not humans, therefore we should be careful with such comparisons". Do you also think that LLMs should have rights? Should it be illegal to make an LLM work 24h a day? > I work in ML, although not LLM, and I do understand how they work. I never meant to underestimate ML. However it feels like you underestimate humans :-). > I don't think you can reduce LLMs to obfuscating copy-pasters. I believe they are closer to our internalizing process Wow. If you think that LLMs are closer to humans than to copy-pasters... you must not think much of living organisms. Now I understand why ML people think that AGI is coming soon :).

palata 3y ago

I keep reading this argument, and it's hard for me to grasp how people think it makes sense. Why do people keep comparing an LLM to a human? If I copy-paste your code, can I say that my computer "read your code, learned from it and later wrote something inspired and based on the knowledge it internalized"? If I take a photography of a photography, can I sell it as mine, given that my camera "observed the original and learned from it"? My opinion is that if you read my code, learn from it and later write something inspired and based on the knowledge you internalized, then that is fine. Because you are a human. But if you do anything that it functionally an obfuscated copy-paste and pretend that you actually created that, then that is not fine.

jpambrun 3y ago
Likewise, it is hard for me to understand how people think your argument makes sense.. I work in ML, although not LLM, and I do understand how they work. I don't think you can reduce LLMs to obfuscating copy-pasters. I believe they are closer to our internalizing process and they can come up with novel solutions to never seen before problems.
- palata 3y ago
  > Likewise, it is hard for me to understand how people think your argument makes sense.. My argument is "LLMs are not humans, therefore we should be careful with such comparisons". Do you also think that LLMs should have rights? Should it be illegal to make an LLM work 24h a day? > I work in ML, although not LLM, and I do understand how they work. I never meant to underestimate ML. However it feels like you underestimate humans :-). > I don't think you can reduce LLMs to obfuscating copy-pasters. I believe they are closer to our internalizing process Wow. If you think that LLMs are closer to humans than to copy-pasters... you must not think much of living organisms. Now I understand why ML people think that AGI is coming soon :).