6 ms·

What I meant to say is that, in many cases, a generative model's output is not in fact steered by minor amounts by lots of training samples, but instead steered

What I meant to say is that, in many cases, a generative model's output is not in fact steered by minor amounts by lots of training samples, but instead steered by a just few samples. Some outputs are influenced by many inputs, and some by very few, it really depends. In answer to a post suggesting that training on a datapoint could mean plagiarism, you said that this would imply that all outputs are plagiarized. This is not the case, no, because generative models do not "copy" or "create", they do both at different times. I did not agree or disagree with the original poster, I was explaining to you why I thought you disagreed with them. If you understand what I said above, then why do you disagree with them? EDIT: I just saw your other post on "general inspiration" and I believe I read the situation exactly; you appear to believe that inputs used to train generative models get "lost in the parameter soup", but it is not always the case.

fc417fc802 8d ago
> In answer to a post suggesting that training on a datapoint could mean plagiarism, you said that this would imply that all outputs are plagiarized. We read the original differently. As clearly stated in my previous reply to you, I interpret it as claiming that all outputs are necessarily plagiarizations of the training data. That is not my claim (as you wrongly stated) rather it is the claim I am responding to. I observe that it is absurd to object to a single action being a transgression on the basis of an argument which implies that all actions are inherently transgressions. Notice that nowhere do I take a position on whether or not the argument about all actions being transgressions is true or false. > you appear to believe that ... I do not, no. I have not taken a position of my own here. I've merely objected that the one I responded to does not make for a sensible line of argument in context. It seems that you (and many others) have read my objection to position A as support for position B and attempted to infer what I think from that.
- hellohello2 7d ago
  I simply do not see how you can interpret "if they do not deny training on them, they can't deny plagiarism" as "all outputs are necessarily plagiarizations of the training data". There is a difference between claiming an action is a transgression, and claiming it could be one.

fc417fc802 8d ago

> In answer to a post suggesting that training on a datapoint could mean plagiarism, you said that this would imply that all outputs are plagiarized. We read the original differently. As clearly stated in my previous reply to you, I interpret it as claiming that all outputs are necessarily plagiarizations of the training data. That is not my claim (as you wrongly stated) rather it is the claim I am responding to. I observe that it is absurd to object to a single action being a transgression on the basis of an argument which implies that all actions are inherently transgressions. Notice that nowhere do I take a position on whether or not the argument about all actions being transgressions is true or false. > you appear to believe that ... I do not, no. I have not taken a position of my own here. I've merely objected that the one I responded to does not make for a sensible line of argument in context. It seems that you (and many others) have read my objection to position A as support for position B and attempted to infer what I think from that.

hellohello2 7d ago
I simply do not see how you can interpret "if they do not deny training on them, they can't deny plagiarism" as "all outputs are necessarily plagiarizations of the training data". There is a difference between claiming an action is a transgression, and claiming it could be one.