4 ms·
This can be replicated on a small scale by using two LLMs (which can be two instances of the same LLM). Start with a human prompt, then feed the answer of LLM-1
by antklan 2y ago
This can be replicated on a small scale by using two LLMs (which can be two instances of the same LLM). Start with a human prompt, then feed the answer of LLM-1 as the prompt to LLM-2, then feed that answer of LLM-2 to LLM-1 and so forth.
The answers soon converge to some boring, bland repetition that isn't even logical.
No intelligence here, which means that code emitting LLMs are just stealing human IP that they happened to have read.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoI too was trained stealing human "IP". It just took decades (perhaps is continuing still). Maybe slow, ongoing AI is the future.
- lab03615 2y agoI would reject the implicit materialistic worldview, but anyone is free to have their own opinions of course. Aside from that, if a human creates a new work that builds on other people's work, it must have sufficient creativity and magnitude to qualify as new IP. A human also does not connect to the Internet and distributes the IP that they have read to millions of users for subscription fee.
- ben_w 2y ago> A human also does not connect to the Internet and distributes the IP that they have read to millions of users for subscription fee. Patreon, substack, reaction videos, the news? "It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I am inspired, you plagiarise, they are being prosecuted under Section 7 of the Copyright Act" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36830574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36830574
- viraptor 2y agoWhat do you think would happen if you did that with people who have no reason to talk, but are forced to give an answer each time? I'm sure at some point they'd just degrade to nonsense, but I don't think that says anything about intelligence. (Being stuck for a long time with a friend does occasionally degrade into nonsense and absurd injokes in my experience)
- lab03615 2y agoIn a political discussion people are forced to give an answer each time and yet the discussion does not converge to utter nonsense, provided that both participants are intelligent. For the younger people here who have only watched recent political discussions, search on YouTube for discussions before 2000, preferably before 1980. Same for a scientific discussion. By the way, Bing Copilot absolutely aborts conversations it does not like. LLMs could also change the subject, like humans do if they detect repetition.
- viraptor 2y ago> In a political discussion That's a completely different scenario than OP stated. In a political discussion you have an agenda, reasons to engage, plan for progress, constraints on topics/time, context and experience, and you know when to withdraw. The scenario described is closer to "Do a political discussion." and being forced to continue forever.
- thuuuomas 2y agoCan you link this idle observation directly to the operation of LLMs or is this more anthropomorphizing boosterism?
- viraptor 2y agoI'm not sure where you saw anthropomorphizing. It's not in my message.
- whoitwas 2y agoI wouldn't call crawling public data stealing. LLMs are just lazy and bad like the people who implemented them.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago> No intelligence here, which means that code emitting LLMs are just stealing human IP that they happened to have read. Well, "stealing" is incorrect as they don't consume the original text - it's still there. "Plagiarising " would be more accurate.