I've been saying "if AI is making you so productive then where is all this great new software" and I guess the answer is the software is out there it's just not great, it's terrible, and nobody is using it
-
You're trying to argue against what amounts to natural laws, from your own lack of knowledge about the area.
That's the same thing as climate deniers do.
@troed @ahto I guess you mean scientific laws because natural laws are a philosophical concept. I also suppose you meant climate *change* deniers which - besides being uncalled for name-calling - is a bit ironic given that worsening climate change is indeed one of the externalities. Anyway back to the case in point it's not about a handful of words, we now have plenty of literature proving that training data contains verbatim copies of high-probability inputs regardless of what Shannon's theorem says, e.g.:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.02671v1
> For Claude 3.7 Sonnet, we were able to extract four whole books near-verbatim, including two books under copyright in the U.S.: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and 1984
Anyway this brings me to another question. Why defending these systems in the face of the damage they do? Because you used them to write some software? That's your *expertise* that you used. That enabled you to do it, not the tool. That's the lie at the heart of these systems.
-
I recommend Susan Blackmore's "Consciousness: An Introduction" and Douglas Hofstadters "I Am a Strange Loop" if you want more insight into moden neuroscience.
-
@troed @ahto I guess you mean scientific laws because natural laws are a philosophical concept. I also suppose you meant climate *change* deniers which - besides being uncalled for name-calling - is a bit ironic given that worsening climate change is indeed one of the externalities. Anyway back to the case in point it's not about a handful of words, we now have plenty of literature proving that training data contains verbatim copies of high-probability inputs regardless of what Shannon's theorem says, e.g.:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.02671v1
> For Claude 3.7 Sonnet, we were able to extract four whole books near-verbatim, including two books under copyright in the U.S.: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and 1984
Anyway this brings me to another question. Why defending these systems in the face of the damage they do? Because you used them to write some software? That's your *expertise* that you used. That enabled you to do it, not the tool. That's the lie at the heart of these systems.
@gabrielesvelto "high-probability inputs" + "near verbatim" is the same as what humans can do (ask your nearest Quran-reciter).
"regardless of what Shannon's theorem says"
Yeah that's when it just becomes funny.
"You claimed that LLMs work like brains"
No, I wrote: "What happens in their neural networks is very similar to what happens in a human brain when learning"
Do you dispute that statement? What is it the whole field of neural networks is modelled after?
-
@gabrielesvelto "high-probability inputs" + "near verbatim" is the same as what humans can do (ask your nearest Quran-reciter).
"regardless of what Shannon's theorem says"
Yeah that's when it just becomes funny.
"You claimed that LLMs work like brains"
No, I wrote: "What happens in their neural networks is very similar to what happens in a human brain when learning"
Do you dispute that statement? What is it the whole field of neural networks is modelled after?
@troed @ahto what humans can do and how information is stored are two different things and you're deliberately mixing up the concepts. Shannon's theorem is *specifically* about storage, so how do you want to slice this particular piece of bread?
That aside let's go back to your original extraordinary claim that neural networks learn like human brains: where's your proof? Your peer-reviewed proof complete with reproducible results? Because they really are nothing alike.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/ai-is-nothing-like-a-brain-and-thats-ok-20250430/
> But they’re not the same — and probably never will be. “[Neural networks] are now sufficiently different from the way that actual brains are in so many different ways that I think it’s actually more sensible to think of them as a really different information-processing object,” said Shine, the systems neurobiologist, “one that’s extremely interesting in its own right.”
-
@troed @ahto what humans can do and how information is stored are two different things and you're deliberately mixing up the concepts. Shannon's theorem is *specifically* about storage, so how do you want to slice this particular piece of bread?
That aside let's go back to your original extraordinary claim that neural networks learn like human brains: where's your proof? Your peer-reviewed proof complete with reproducible results? Because they really are nothing alike.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/ai-is-nothing-like-a-brain-and-thats-ok-20250430/
> But they’re not the same — and probably never will be. “[Neural networks] are now sufficiently different from the way that actual brains are in so many different ways that I think it’s actually more sensible to think of them as a really different information-processing object,” said Shine, the systems neurobiologist, “one that’s extremely interesting in its own right.”
"Shannon's theorem is *specifically* about storage"
Yes, that's the fact that disproves LLMs storing their training data verbatim. This is how you make a logic proof.
"let's go back to your original extraordinary claim that neural networks learn like human brains: where's your proof? Your peer-reviewed proof complete with reproducible results? Because they really are nothing alike."
Here's Google's paper from 2017 that is behind all the LLM architectures today:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762
Here's an explanation to how that's similar to human brains:
I wrote my first back-propagating neural network in 1993. You?
-
You're trying to argue against what amounts to natural laws, from your own lack of knowledge about the area.
That's the same thing as climate deniers do.
I asked about the domain, we could be talking about infinite sets, finite sets, where the alphabet is infinite, lossy and lossless and other kind of nuances here. Could have been asking about quantum mechanics here and error correction.
You got specific and attempted to portray a belief I never stated like so as well.
I was more open to things I may not have considered and read up on them. You wanted to try and flex, okay, that's fine.
> I get why you don't _want_ to answer, since the answer proves that with the laws of physics in this universe LLMs don't store copies of their training data.
Which is you speculating about things without evidence here.
To be pedantic here as well:
> Oh this isn't theory
I mean, I was off with measure theory but I guess it belongs to information theory here so not true.
> You're trying to argue against what amounts to natural laws, from your own lack of knowledge about the area.
No, I just outlined the works and I had cited work by academics who have done research in this area and have shown claims that it is able to be reconstructed and leading to the conclusion that they are encoding the data in some form.
-
I asked about the domain, we could be talking about infinite sets, finite sets, where the alphabet is infinite, lossy and lossless and other kind of nuances here. Could have been asking about quantum mechanics here and error correction.
You got specific and attempted to portray a belief I never stated like so as well.
I was more open to things I may not have considered and read up on them. You wanted to try and flex, okay, that's fine.
> I get why you don't _want_ to answer, since the answer proves that with the laws of physics in this universe LLMs don't store copies of their training data.
Which is you speculating about things without evidence here.
To be pedantic here as well:
> Oh this isn't theory
I mean, I was off with measure theory but I guess it belongs to information theory here so not true.
> You're trying to argue against what amounts to natural laws, from your own lack of knowledge about the area.
No, I just outlined the works and I had cited work by academics who have done research in this area and have shown claims that it is able to be reconstructed and leading to the conclusion that they are encoding the data in some form.
@ahto "they are encoding the data in some form."
Yes, they're creating lossy memories from the ingested training. That's what human brains also do.
Neither of us "store copies".
-
"Shannon's theorem is *specifically* about storage"
Yes, that's the fact that disproves LLMs storing their training data verbatim. This is how you make a logic proof.
"let's go back to your original extraordinary claim that neural networks learn like human brains: where's your proof? Your peer-reviewed proof complete with reproducible results? Because they really are nothing alike."
Here's Google's paper from 2017 that is behind all the LLM architectures today:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762
Here's an explanation to how that's similar to human brains:
I wrote my first back-propagating neural network in 1993. You?
> Yes, that's the fact that disproves LLMs storing their training data verbatim. This is how you make a logic proof.
Really? Here's a type of lossless storage that respects Shannon's theorem while storing verbatim data: I scrape X data off the internet, I can keep only Y data where Y < X. I throw away all non-copyrighted material until I get only Y data. Shannon's theorem was respected and I have verbatim data that I am now distributing without consent, attribution or compensation.
> https://
arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762This contains exactly zero proof that LLMs and brains operate alike.
-
> Yes, that's the fact that disproves LLMs storing their training data verbatim. This is how you make a logic proof.
Really? Here's a type of lossless storage that respects Shannon's theorem while storing verbatim data: I scrape X data off the internet, I can keep only Y data where Y < X. I throw away all non-copyrighted material until I get only Y data. Shannon's theorem was respected and I have verbatim data that I am now distributing without consent, attribution or compensation.
> https://
arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762This contains exactly zero proof that LLMs and brains operate alike.
> https://www.
brown-tth.com/post/the-neural-network-in-our-heads-how-transformer-architectures-mirror-the-human-brainFrom your second link:
> Still, at the end of the day, the brain is far more complex than even the most advanced neural networks today. The brain has 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion connections, compared to Transformers with billions of parameters. The brain also develops its connections over years of growth and learning, whereas Transformers are trained for a limited time on a fixed dataset. The brain is the result of evolution, while humans design Transformers. As researchers put it: “the brain is trained with a recurrent architecture and on a relatively small amount of grounded sentences, while transformers are trained with a massive feedforward architecture and on huge text databases.”
Did you actually read it before posting it?
-
@ahto "they are encoding the data in some form."
Yes, they're creating lossy memories from the ingested training. That's what human brains also do.
Neither of us "store copies".
Oh ffs - This is embarrassing for you dude but thank you for finally coming around to admitting it.
Would replication be a better word instead of copy? Given that exact copies and lossy versions are reconstructable and resembling training material.
However, your argument amounts to the napster one ("But sir, it is an MP3, it is a different from the original"), this not something that is entertained seriously.
Many people are aware of that this happens. Upon review, I did think about the interpretation of "copy" in this conversation and entertained both versions of it being "lossless" and "lossy".
However, both are covered here and I think what this argument culminates to is that:
You are comfortable with the idea of LLMs having some lossy encoding (regardless if it is minor or not or if it can reconstruct the original, you seem to value an excuse for whatever reason).
All this under the guise that "it is like how we learn" which you are lacking some definitive proof here.
I'll chalk up that some of the papers you linked have made some interesting points and have value to how we learn but they are not remotely providing the assertion you are making here.
---
Look,
If you want to use code that you did not write, from a machine made by someone who didn't ask for majority of the authors consent to use, under an excuse that it is 'lossy' - Fine, I don't control you.
However, people probably aren't going to respect you because you clearly do not respect other people or their work.
-
> https://www.
brown-tth.com/post/the-neural-network-in-our-heads-how-transformer-architectures-mirror-the-human-brainFrom your second link:
> Still, at the end of the day, the brain is far more complex than even the most advanced neural networks today. The brain has 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion connections, compared to Transformers with billions of parameters. The brain also develops its connections over years of growth and learning, whereas Transformers are trained for a limited time on a fixed dataset. The brain is the result of evolution, while humans design Transformers. As researchers put it: “the brain is trained with a recurrent architecture and on a relatively small amount of grounded sentences, while transformers are trained with a massive feedforward architecture and on huge text databases.”
Did you actually read it before posting it?
@gabrielesvelto Yes? I'm sorry, maybe you're trying to move the goalposts?
-
Oh ffs - This is embarrassing for you dude but thank you for finally coming around to admitting it.
Would replication be a better word instead of copy? Given that exact copies and lossy versions are reconstructable and resembling training material.
However, your argument amounts to the napster one ("But sir, it is an MP3, it is a different from the original"), this not something that is entertained seriously.
Many people are aware of that this happens. Upon review, I did think about the interpretation of "copy" in this conversation and entertained both versions of it being "lossless" and "lossy".
However, both are covered here and I think what this argument culminates to is that:
You are comfortable with the idea of LLMs having some lossy encoding (regardless if it is minor or not or if it can reconstruct the original, you seem to value an excuse for whatever reason).
All this under the guise that "it is like how we learn" which you are lacking some definitive proof here.
I'll chalk up that some of the papers you linked have made some interesting points and have value to how we learn but they are not remotely providing the assertion you are making here.
---
Look,
If you want to use code that you did not write, from a machine made by someone who didn't ask for majority of the authors consent to use, under an excuse that it is 'lossy' - Fine, I don't control you.
However, people probably aren't going to respect you because you clearly do not respect other people or their work.
"people probably aren't going to respect because you clearly do not respect other people or their work."
The anti-AI fanatics are exactly like antivaxxers. They believe they know the Truth and that all others agree with them except for those in some big conspiracy.
You're just wrong.
(You also don't seem to know that lossy encoding doesn't recreate the source verbatim. This fits with you seemingly having entered this debate without actually having any knowledge about the subject matter. Cue climate denier comparison)
-
"people probably aren't going to respect because you clearly do not respect other people or their work."
The anti-AI fanatics are exactly like antivaxxers. They believe they know the Truth and that all others agree with them except for those in some big conspiracy.
You're just wrong.
(You also don't seem to know that lossy encoding doesn't recreate the source verbatim. This fits with you seemingly having entered this debate without actually having any knowledge about the subject matter. Cue climate denier comparison)
Okay, you can believe whatever you want
.The conclusion is funny but quite a bit sad on your front. I do sincerely hope you reflect on this whole thing but I doubt you will.
-
If you want to make completely different points to the one answered - sure!
Has any artist ever compensated another from having looked at their paintings while learning to draw?
Has any budding coder ever compensated others when having studied their code to learn how to do things?
I'm all for lambasting shitty tech bro AI companies, but that's not the same as claiming that any and all LLM usage is bad. I suggest looking at Mistral AI as a european company that's building datacenters using fully renewable energy and ethically sourced data.
As artists who will happily share what we have with others and economically support other artists when possible, your attempt at an argument is sickening.
Art is not a transaction, you talk to the artists, they teach you how things work, you figure out things and you decompose their work, you create, you have joy, you get frustrated, it has meaning, it has purpose, it is the journey in on itself. By learning how an artist tackles a problem you are not literally ripping off their art and grafting it ransom letter-style into some other art with pieces of other artists.
You say you are a demoscener. What the fuck happened to you? To the joy of creation, to seeing the machine come alive, to coming along with friends and have some dude draw some graphics while another friend bangs the tunes and have everyone coalesce into a beautiful piece of work being orchestrated by a machine the public at large forgot? what happened about telling a story, about doing art where the computer is merely the medium? what happened to that? Who hurt you?
Or it did not happen, because as with many people out there, y'all saw the demoscene not as an art, and just as a way to show off and measure your own e-peens for some cash prize while internalizing crunch culture that game publishers oh-so-desperately craved to normalize in the 90s?
The future is here now, old man, and the future gives no shits about slavery-plagiarism machines y'all try to shove down people's throats. People don't want software for the sake of having software.
By mere definition there is no such thing as an ethical LLM or image generator.
-
As artists who will happily share what we have with others and economically support other artists when possible, your attempt at an argument is sickening.
Art is not a transaction, you talk to the artists, they teach you how things work, you figure out things and you decompose their work, you create, you have joy, you get frustrated, it has meaning, it has purpose, it is the journey in on itself. By learning how an artist tackles a problem you are not literally ripping off their art and grafting it ransom letter-style into some other art with pieces of other artists.
You say you are a demoscener. What the fuck happened to you? To the joy of creation, to seeing the machine come alive, to coming along with friends and have some dude draw some graphics while another friend bangs the tunes and have everyone coalesce into a beautiful piece of work being orchestrated by a machine the public at large forgot? what happened about telling a story, about doing art where the computer is merely the medium? what happened to that? Who hurt you?
Or it did not happen, because as with many people out there, y'all saw the demoscene not as an art, and just as a way to show off and measure your own e-peens for some cash prize while internalizing crunch culture that game publishers oh-so-desperately craved to normalize in the 90s?
The future is here now, old man, and the future gives no shits about slavery-plagiarism machines y'all try to shove down people's throats. People don't want software for the sake of having software.
By mere definition there is no such thing as an ethical LLM or image generator.
"You say you are a demoscener. What the fuck happened to you?"
Still releasing content, just as I've always released content for others to peruse as they see fit.
"y'all try to shove down people's throats"
I am? Strange - I'm positive that I wrote that me and my peers _choose_ to use LLMs, for ourselves, since we see benefits from doing so.
My guess is that you belong to the antivaxxer-like mindset. No facts in the world will ever sway your conviction, because you _know_ the Truth.
-
this post has made all the AI users Big Mad
@eniko thanks for always giving us the best posts to make blocklists about.
And telling us which ones attract the worse kind of people I would identify as "burnable" -
@gabrielesvelto LLMs don't "store copies" when they train. What happens in their neural networks is very similar to what happens in a human brain when learning.
"run of the mill": https://mistral.ai/news/our-contribution-to-a-global-environmental-standard-for-ai/
@troed @gabrielesvelto "very similar to the human brain" is a major missunderstanding of a human brain.
Retract your propaganda, post less, read more. -
@troed @gabrielesvelto "very similar to the human brain" is a major missunderstanding of a human brain.
Retract your propaganda, post less, read more.And in what way is your gut feeling about how the brain works relevant here?
-
And in what way is your gut feeling about how the brain works relevant here?
@troed Are you a fucking idiot? Wait no you already answered that.
You're a developer, not a neurologist. And by the looks of it, you haven't even taken a basic course at a university or read half a book.
It may not be my career now, but I aimed it to be my career. And this is -basics- of how not to treat science as a yes or no.
Brain is still very much a black box of mysteries, for reasons related to actual functionality, not to reasons related to probability.
Get a grip, fool. -
@troed Are you a fucking idiot? Wait no you already answered that.
You're a developer, not a neurologist. And by the looks of it, you haven't even taken a basic course at a university or read half a book.
It may not be my career now, but I aimed it to be my career. And this is -basics- of how not to treat science as a yes or no.
Brain is still very much a black box of mysteries, for reasons related to actual functionality, not to reasons related to probability.
Get a grip, fool.@troed I would explain BY DETAIL a bunch of shit but honestly, I like to read, not to post, as you told someone else.
Apply your bullshit philosophy, go find a book, someone more intelligent than you explaining something, or anything inbetween. I tend to do that, and I become better by doing that.
This is a recommendation. Which I shouldn't be giving to someone so fucking pretentious as you, but there you have it.
