6 ms·

Agree with this. Strange to me to frame the "training recall" as cheating (33 of the 38 cheating instances). Most people think of "cheating" as breaking rules.

• anematode 3mo ago
  By writing a not-identical, but valid, solution? Any modestly complex engineering problem has many solutions. This is an obvious example of why LLM training is so different than human learning.
  • simoncion 3mo ago
    I expect any well-informed corporate lawyer that has thought about this carefully is strongly advising that these tools not be used. When the LLM [0] barfs up some nontrivial code that's covered by the AGPL and your company's devs put it into the company's "all rights reserved" codebase -entirely unaware of its provenance- it's going to be a nightmare to come back from that. [0] ...that Nvidia's CEO says they should be spending 50% of a senior dev's salary per seat per year on...
    • senordevnyc 3mo ago
      The ship sailed on this a long time ago.
      • simoncion 3mo ago
        Oh definitely not. We're not yet solidly out of the "extremely exuberant hype" phase, so the folks that matter tend to not ask questions that dampen the mood.
        • senordevnyc 3mo ago
          Sorry to tell you friend, but LLMs have touched the vast majority of active codebases out there, whether you like it or not. You can tell yourself that you’re one of “the folks that matter” (lol) all you want, but we’re never going back.
          • customguy 3mo ago
            That's what people told Ignaz Semmelweis, too, I assume. "Nothing you can do, the powers that be decided, you are a minority, you don't matter, lol!" Snickering in the shadow of what they won't confront at those who do.
            • duskdozer 3mo ago
              Well, perhaps we will be sent similarly to asylums for "anti-AI psychosis"
              • deleted 3mo ago
                [deleted]
            • CuriouslyC 3mo ago
              Not a great analogy. A better analogy is to longbows and muskets/rifles. Longbows in the hands of a skilled user were much better weapons than early muskets, but muskets brought consistency, a lower skill floor and reduced ammunition cost. Fast forward a few hundred years and the modern incarnations of muskets make longbows look silly, and nobody would ever argue that you should go to war with longbows.
              • customguy 3mo ago
                This isn't about "AI", this is about theft and abuse, and snickering under the thumb of a bully at those who call them out. Rape was probably also "normal" for most of our history, now it's not. Early people who criticized it were probably told "what u gonna do?", too.
                • senordevnyc 3mo ago
                  You don’t even know what we’re talking about in this thread, do you? We’re talking about whether corporations are going to risk using LLMs in their codebase because of the theoretical legal risk that they might produce something that would fall under open source licenses, and be difficult to untangle later. Regardless of what you think the morality is here, or what the legal situation turns out to be, this is already happening. The vast majority of corporate codebases are already “infected” by LLM outputs. Even at corporations where that’s not allowed, I promise there are devs using LLMs anyway.
  • torginus 3mo ago
    I mean people expect a model to give a working solution. They also expect it to provide it in as few tokens as possible (input/output). They might expect it to come up with an original solution, but I don't think most people would compromise on the first two points.
• notnullorvoid 3mo ago
  While I probably wouldn't classify it as cheating, it is an even bigger signal of concern for model quality. Cheating by breaking the rules at least implies some learned patterns. Repeating training data verbatim for narrow cases like this implies that the model is overfitting.
  • Spartan-S63 3mo ago
    If we're evaluating a person, rote recall is not necessarily cheating. It's expected, but then you'd expect them to apply that rote-memorized information in a novel way later on and prove they understand how they applied their priors to the new situation. Models don't actually reason in the same sense, so recalling rote from their training data is "cheating" in the sense that the training data cheated, not the model. So many of those benches have snaked their way into training data to make them less useful benchmarks. That, I think, is going to be a long-term difficulty in quantitatively assessing model quality and "intelligence." So it is cheating, in a sense of what we expect from the models and training data, but not in a human sense.
• greenavocado 3mo ago
  Memoization is NOT problem solving ability and many people care about the latter.