davebren

6 ms·

1.
by davebren 3mo ago
In effect the source code is being copied by the LLM. This is what it's designed to do. LLMs are a lossy statistical compression of their training data. If you give it a prompt telling it to replicate a product that's in its train
2.
by davebren 3mo ago
Whatever LLM they used copied the source code. It took their prompt and filled in the blanks of the spec by copying from the closest matching open source project. This is just what a next token predictor is going to do if you tell it to rep
3.
by davebren 3mo ago
Not popping doesn't seem possible to me, since all investment has been directed towards it, massive construction projects have been started, etc... The revenue needed to keep OpenAI and Anthropic afloat is insane and there's no wa
4.
by davebren 3mo ago
Yes a test showing an LLM can reproduce an app in its training data and not an equivalent complexity app that is not in its training data is equivalent to proving the statement I made that having your codebase trained on will allow a compet
5.
by davebren 3mo ago
I have neural net applications I programmed entirely myself from 16 years ago and all I see from you are some python scripts so I guess I win this stupid game I wasn't even trying to play. You haven't made a single technical point
6.
by davebren 3mo ago
I wasted 2k on a color e-ink monitor that ended up being pretty much unusable. Reviews said as much but the risk was worth it to me for the chance to spend my days looking at something that doesn't feel like a screen. I believe it&#x27
7.
by davebren 3mo ago
First I never made any claims about myself or appealed to my authority, that was you. I still don't see any evidence of any technical expertise in ML or in programming anything more complicated than python scripts. Maybe you weren&#x27
8.
by davebren 3mo ago
I don't use these tools, but wouldn't it be better to use them only after you do a manual review to see if they find anything you missed? Otherwise I could see reviewers getting false confidence and doing a less thorough review. T
9.
by davebren 3mo ago
You could just test it for yourself if you're actually interested in finding out (assuming you are a decent programmer, but your bio suggests you have no technical expertise in the area).
10.
by davebren 3mo ago
It has. LLMs being able to one-shot any higher-order complexity is entirely dependent on it already being in the training data.
11.
by davebren 3mo ago
You trust those?
12.
by davebren 3mo ago
I don't really use LLMs myself, but if someone wants to have any kind of software business then having the models trained on their products isn't ideal.
13.
by davebren 3mo ago
Who are you quoting?
14.
by davebren 3mo ago
Do you think that everyone using it and their employers are aware that they are giving their competition the ability to copy straight from their codebase when they ask it to replicate their product?
15.
by davebren 3mo ago
It's not theft in the same way a con artist convinces you to give him all your money. The people using it or their employers just don't realize any competitor will be able to ask the LLM to replicate their product and it will copy
16.
by davebren 3mo ago
One of the funniest things is how hard it was to get approval for a $100 software license but now people are being encouraged to burn thousands on tokens.
17.
by davebren 3mo ago
> "In its IPO filing, the company had said Cursor's access to developers' data, including coding requests and design decisions, could help improve its AI models such as Grok." They're all stealing your IP and sel
18.
by davebren 3mo ago
> "to practice what happens if a much more serious event occurs" A pair of bolt cutters should do.
19.
by davebren 4mo ago
Uploading your IP to the biggest IP thieves in human history seems bad idk. 2. Eventually we'll get to where local models that don't have sycophancy and slot-machine mechanics trained into them will perform better.
20.
by davebren 4mo ago
This seems to be a good middle ground then. It allows for a way to prevent political projects getting grants under the guise of "scientific research", at least when they directly oppose the voters. I don't see any push to def
21.
by davebren 4mo ago
Instead of programming something yourself now you'll be forced to program through the interface of someone that doesn't speak English putting what you say into an LLM. We've peaked.
22.
by davebren 4mo ago
Seems more like a materialist religious project to me.
23.
by davebren 4mo ago
> but there’s no denying that the barrier to entry has fallen significantly. The barrier to entry to make slop is lower, but it's gotten much higher for developing the skill of programming. There was already an issue with a lack of
24.
by davebren 4mo ago
> Clearly the theory that LLM's can't "extrapolate" is woefully incomplete at best (and most likely simply incorrect). What example is there where an LLM has extrapolated? All I've seen is a data set so large and
25.
by davebren 4mo ago
Newton did it at 23 and there would have been very few people with mathematical training. The LLM would be trained on the entirety of recorded human knowledge and mathematics up to that point, and would get to use a lot more energy so it st
26.
by davebren 4mo ago
Synthetic training data is carefully crafted by humans. The rare geniuses of human history use a different magnitude and configuration of the same kind of human intelligence that posted a dad joke on a site that got scraped into the trainin
27.
by davebren 4mo ago
It sounds like you don't have the subjective experience of meaning that most humans do, so maybe that would explain why you don't think there is anything beyond associations. Maybe this is the core difference that's determini
28.
by davebren 4mo ago
Ordinary humans do novel things all the time. Where do you think LLMs got all the training data that their responses come from?
29.
by davebren 4mo ago
What did you say that added to the discussion? I wasn't wondering at all. More compute time won't create new mathematics. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand the technology and there is no amount of hackernews votes that will
30.
by davebren 4mo ago
> There’s no reason to believe that kind of guess-and-check is outside of the reach of LLMs This doesn't make any sense, by their nature they can't "guess-and-check" things outside their training set.

More ›