- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- technology@midwest.social
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- technology@midwest.social
My how fast the AI tech bros move to protect corporations but don’t move to protect the average coder, artists, writers.
My how fast the AI tech bros move to protect corporations but don’t move to protect the average coder, artists, writers.
The “There’s no way we can stop our agents from going rogue” people, suddenly have a burst of ability to reign in their creation when it suits their interests.
Funny that…
Does anyone think that perhaps what they are afraid is that source code of such clone would be compared to the original and show evidence that maybe the model was already trained on the code of the game?
The models don’t store access to their training data. So no, there’s no source code in the model to retrieve.
It’s long been proven that LLMs can produce exact copies of their training data. Not every piece of training data, of course, but enough where spitting out exact replicas of proprietary code is a legitimate concern. Not to mention that copies don’t need to be exact in order to be a problem.
So why can they recreate entire articles from the New Yorker and complete functions from the training set? Don’t fall for the slop laundering.
I think this is definitely a concern, yes.
I think it’s very likely that these models are effectively being tricked into retrieving source code of projects from memory of seeing the actual source code in the biases. This is why some project are much easier to uncover than others.
They aren’t being tricked. They are doing exactly what they were designed to do