Zima

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…

severance.

this reminded me of a quote from a tv show i’m watching. “Hell is just the product of a morbid human imagination, The bad news is whatever humans can imagine they can usually create”

sounds like typical manufactured outrage from journalists trying to improve their CTR on their non-news…

they wanted him back but he had the condition that they made an apology letter and cleared him of any wrongdoing. that’s when they changed their minds. if this is about not apologizing to save the company they do seem incompetent.

I think you clearly can show that it’s possble but that doesn’t mean it’s likely the articles suggest it but they don’t have any statistics to back it up. there is no equivalence between being poor and conspiring to get someone’s money and cutting out someone from their inheritance.

I completely disgree with your view that if you have money you have to help family even if they are radioactive to you. in some cases it’s best to take distance. especially if the other person is so troubled that whenever you help it just backfires because they can’t stop the drama.

I don’t doubt that most sex workers have trauma issues or even childhood issues, the part I’m not finding easy to accept is that it’s likely that the family would usually side with the accuser.

Is it usual that all the family and even therapists side against alleged victim? I think it’s not impossible if the person is so traumatized and troubled to the point that the family rejects her but I struggle to believe that is the usual case.

I don’t think he wants to fight you for it.

vague allegations of abuse are only evidence for clout chasers. while she might be a victim she only started talking about it when his brother became successful. the link you shared also says it’s essentially her word and there is no factual evidence, is also very suspicious howall the family decided to side with the brother.

I hope they look into how they are treating desktop clients as secondary devices with extra hassle. I’ll try it if they address that.

of course not.