This Twitterism really bugs me.

You took the time to write a really detailed response (much appreciated, you convinced me). There’s no need to explicitly dunk on the OP. Though if you really want to be a little mean (a little bit is fair imo), I think it should be closer to level of creativity of the rest of your comment. Call them ignorant and say you can’t take them seriously or something. The twitterism wouldn’t really stand on its own as a comment.

Sorry for the nitpicky rant.

If there were another party involved, that would (hopefully) diversify power that (potentially) comes with those streams of data.

It’s a bit ironic that the USA has mostly abandoned interoperability after being one of the pioneers with the American manufacturing method. [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_system_of_manufacturi...

Whether the USA has a sufficiently functional justice system is another topic. My intuition is also that, in the presence of a disfunctional social system, fixing (or replacing) the system will usually lead to better outcomes than side stepping it. Not that I really want to talk about the minutia and challenges of fixing the USA’s justice system.

Lots of questions about the $20k. Is that raw electricity costs, subsidized user token costs? If so, the actual costs to run these sorts of tasks sustainably could be something like $200k. Even at $50k, a FreeBSD DoS is not an extremely competitive price. That's like 2-4mo of labor.

Don't get me wrong, I think this seems like a great use for LLMs. It intuitively feels like a much more powerful form of white box fuzzing that used techniques like symbolic execution to try to guide execution contexts to more important code paths.

Please educate yourself on the basics or at least put more effort in before participating in conversations.

[0]: It’s easy to abuse the Socratic method and devolve a discussion into one of first principles. It’s extremely tiresome and a huge waste of everyone’s time.

Nope, there is no “The” Turing Test. Go read his original paper before parroting pop sci nonsense.

The Turing test paper proposes an adversarial game to deduce if the interviewee is human. It’s extremely well thought out. Seriously, read it. Turing mentions that he’d wager something like 70% of unprepared humans wouldn’t be able to correctly discern in the near future. He never claims there to be a definitive test that establishes sentience.

Turing may have won that wager (impressive), but there are clear tells similar to the “how many the r’s are in strawberries?” that an informed interrogator could reliably exploit.

Though I guess such a suit is unlikely if the defendant could just AI wash the work in the first place.

We know that IQ is hereditary to an unknown degree. We have some evidence that IQ relates to intelligence.

We don’t know really know which genetic variables are responsible. Even simple features like height are thought to have ~12k variables.

We don’t even really have a good definition of intelligence (see any AGI comment chain).

I would say that assuming we have good enough data or models to base important decisions on is unscientific.

Decisions like improving education and nutrition don’t really need to help.

> impossible to express in Rust

I’m not going to argue with Rust folks who misrepresent the language.

    let foo = [1, 2, 3];
    unsafe {
        *foo.get_unchecked_mut(4) = 5;
    }

I read the linked Bartz case. It’s disappointing that it seems limited to only the copying of books into a data set and not the result of training LLM on protected works. This is not the “use” that I was discussing and not very interesting.

The plaintiffs didn’t even challenge that the outputs of the LLMs infringe. They judge seems to agree (at least by omission) that fair use wouldn’t apply but that the outputs were transformative and in cases where they aren’t:

> [anthropic] placed additional software between the user and the underlying LLM to ensure that no infringing output ever reached the users.

So this is not true:

> he [the judge] details exactly why the facts of the case and prior case law find that training an AI on copyrighted material is fair use

The plaintiffs also make really awful arguments about “memorizing” and “learning” that falsely anthropomorphize LLMs. Which the judge shoots down.

If we’re going to give LLMs the same rights as humans, there’s unlikely to much of an argument.

I think there’s potential for an argument about how LLMs use “compressed” versions of protected works to _mechanically_ traverse language space. It would be subtle and technical so maybe not likely to work in our current context.

I was making an argument based on quotes from the actual legal code and you’re saying pions who don’t use the exact correct terminology shouldn’t even consider what should or shouldn’t be legal? What a load of junk. This is a democracy. We’re supposed to be engaging with it.

Here’s the 4 part test from 17 U.S.C. § 107:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Fail. The use is to make trillions of dollars and be maximally disruptive.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

Fail. In many cases at least, the copy written code is commercial or otherwise supports livelihoods; and is the result much high skill labor with the express stipulation for reciprocity.

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Fail. They use all of it.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Fail to the extreme. There is already measurable decline in these markets. The leaders explicitly state that they want to put knowledge workers out of business.

- - -

Hell, LLMs don’t even pass the sniff test.

The only reason this stuff is being entertained is some combination of the prisoner’s dilemma and more classic greed.

Machines aren’t human. Don’t anthropomorphize them. The same morals and laws don’t apply.