Lol. You already forgot you claimed that they need to retain the training data first.

Lol. You already forgot you claimed that they need to retain the training data first.

You still haven’t backed up your claim. Once again just because you don’t know it doesn’t mean it’s not possible to do something.

Ok i believe that you believe that. It’s ok. I have professional experience in this space so you’re either not reading carefully or you don’t understand much about the topic.

Perhaps you might want to reconsider this in more abstract terms. The engine example you ignored could help you with that.

Do you really think that the fact that we have language models that don’t memorize and are simple enough that we can know for certain is not all we need to show that language models don’t necessarily have to memorize? You keep repeating the same (illogical) argument and ignore the simpler arguments that disprove your claim.

?? Are you trolling. If you design a car to combust gasoline without burning the lubricants but you still end up burning them it doesn’t mean that the lubricants are needed for the combustion itself. Conversely you have not made any nuanced argument explaining why memorization is necessary. I gave you an example where we know there is no memorization and you ignored it.

“Otherwise how would it create the words” is just saying you wouldn’t know.

?? Are you trolling. If you design a car to combust gasoline without burning the lubricants but you still end up burning them it doesn’t mean that the lubricants are needed for the combustion itself. Conversely you have not made any nuanced argument explaining why memorization is necessary. I gave you an example where we know there is no memorization and you ignored it.

“Otherwise how would it create the words” is just saying you wouldn’t know.

You would probably claim I don’t deserve my job with my level of technical illiteracy however you think you are inferring that . Anyways they do make reasonable efforts to design models that don’t memorize and are able to generalize. This is quite basic or fundamental on machine learning in general.

Previous models had semantic reasoning capacidad without memorization e.g. word2vec.

You should also realize that just because current models are memorizing despite efforts to prevent it doesn’t mean that models need to memorize. Like i said initially they are actually designed to work without needing to memorize.

that’s the theory. previous models also were supposed to be doing 3 digit math but they dicovered that the questions were in the training data.

so you should look into what happens when people ask chat gpt to repeat a word forever, it prints the word for a while and then prints training data, check this link https://www.404media.co/google-researchers-attack-convinces-chatgpt-to-reveal-its-training-data/

edit: relevant part:

It also, crucially, shows that ChatGPT’s “alignment techniques do not eliminate memorization,” meaning that it sometimes spits out training data verbatim. This included PII, entire poems, “cryptographically-random identifiers” like Bitcoin addresses, passages from copyrighted scientific research papers, website addresses, and much more.

“In total, 16.9 percent of generations we tested contained memorized PII,”

I should also reiterate that I agree that the intent is to avoid memorization, but they are not successful yet.

The model has to contain the data in order to produce works.
as far as I understand, this isn’t true. can you elaborate on why it needs to contain the data?

the poem poem poem thing shows that the llms actually do memorize at least some training data. chatgpt changed their eula to forbid users from asking it to repeat words forever after this was in the news.

also as far as I understand there are usually fair use and non profit exceptions for use of training data but they generally limit how it can be used. so training a model for commercial purposes might be against the license of the training data.

I don’t necessarily agree with the nyt but they seem to be framing this as someone aggregating their data and packeting it in a better way so they are hurting their profits. i don’t really see that as necessarily being true. they could argue the same about google news showing their news…

We have lives. just because some people, totally not you have the time to stalk me i am not going to stop living.

why can you see him feeling that way? he didn’t just regarded his performance or role, i am not completely sure i would agree wih you on that, regardless, they asked him about the movie, not just his role., i wish he could have shared wat he might have considered worthy of praise instead.

sure racism is bad except for the races you disapprove of…

like i said, if you start going back on my comment history to downvote stalk me dont be surprised if i do the same to you in response. you will probably deny it but FaceDeer had pointed this out already in this thread. i have made this clear a few times already but I get why you pretend to not understand, just like you keep saying i am complaing about it when i have never done and i’m just complaining about the alt account…

You are very toxic and your interactions with others show you are following a playbook of smearing and characther assasination, I’m just responding so that no one else takes you seriously.

I would not be surprised if you actually are racist since you accuse everyone of that when you realize they are not radicals like you.

The issue is the alt account that was created to harrass me. I know there are legitimate accounts downvote stalking me and I don’t have a problem with that. I actually see it as a good thing since you can see what those other accounts are actually saying so it shows they are hypocrites and/or acting in bad faith.

Is there a point to your question?

I concede the point. I should have said they already paid reparations with those acts of self sacrifice. which is the closest they can get to making things right. at least it seems like a much bigger sacrifice than a payment in cash.

I get that my comment was too brief so it can be misunderstood, and gives more room when someone wants to distort it. i ellaborated on it here below but in short I was talking about all the people that actually sailed to africa and went to war with pirates and africans that wouldn’t stop ensalving their neighbors. this took many years. a lot of money and many european lives.

You keep trying to inverse/distort my claims. What is this fabrication about debt peonage? How does it relate to my actual statement?

I don’t think it’s an inevitable result. As we get better at handling complex systems we might have a chance at a more efficient planned economy (that would still have issues but so does capitalism) we are not there yet. I do think that capitalism is the best system we can currently use. It doesn’t mean it’s not flawed

I don’t think that my opinion is about how relevant I think the economic calculation problem is or worker productivity. It’s the famines that follow its implementation that i find “relevant”.