Yes, she said that. But what she said there just doesn’t make any sense.

I thought she made some very good points, but the quote in the title makes no sense to me.

An individual can use the roads if the can afford a car. Amazon must be operating 1000s or 10.000s of vehicles in the US alone. Clearly, some benefit more than others. Some win at Monopoly.

Are we at least agreed that it is a conservative policy? If you carve up the roads and gift them to the people who own the land next to the roads, it’s still conservative. It will lead to greater inequality and poverty. It’s not left-wing redistribution.

we’re now going to charge anyone who wants to use them and keep 100%. Oh, and you have no ownership rights, so we can restrict access to these roads as we see fit."

I don’t know what this means. What is currently happening that is like that? Besides, you want data to be owned, and an owner can restrict access. Shouldn’t you be all for that?

I thought of something that maybe gets this across. Think about roads. We all pay for them with taxes. Companies use these roads for free to make a profit. EG Amazon runs delivery vehicles on public roads.

The (center-)left take on that is: “You didn’t build that.” It can be an argument for progressive taxation and even a wealth tax.

Then there’s people who say that we should privatize all the roads. Let Amazon pay a toll for using those roads. Is it clear that this is a conservative policy?

You want to force people (not just companies) to pay for use of a new kind of intellectual property. That is capital income. You want money to go to property owners.

If you think about this for a second, you should realize that this means lower wages. If a bigger share goes to property owners, then employees must have a smaller share. The money can’t come from anywhere else.

Like a corporation that pays wages. Yeah, trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

But it doesn’t redistribute wealth. To do that, you have to take wealth from somewhere and spread it elsewhere.

Private ownership ≠ capitalism.

Right. It’s private ownership of capital; aka the means of production. You’re saying that data should be owned because it can be used productively. That’s exactly capitalism for capitalism’s sake.

This is a typical economically right-wing approach. There is a problem, so you just create a new kind of property and call it done. The magic of the market takes care of it, or something. I don’t understand why one would expect a different result from trying the same thing.

The solution for capitalism is more capitalism? Have you never played monopoly?

@[email protected] How are you feeling about yourself?

Ahh. TV shows before everything became political. Just two guys hating each other for very silly reasons completely unconnected to anything on earth.

But it’s not “from each according to his ability”. FOSS is what people feel like contributing. And it’s not “to each according to their need”. It’s take it or leave it, unless someone feels like fulfilling requests.

Traditionally, the slogan meant a duty to work. Contributing what you feel like is just charity.

Capitalism, at its core, is private control of the capital. Copyright law turns code into intellectual property/capital. I’ve read the argument that copyleft requires strong copyrights. That argument implicitly makes copyleft a feature of capitalism. You know how rich people or corporations sometimes donate large sums to get their name on something, EG a hospital wing? That’s not so different from a FOSS license that requires attribution.

This too shall pass.

Haywire. You don’t see that often anymore.

Text explaining why the neural network representation of common features (typically with weighted proportionality to their occurrence) does not meet the definition of a mathematical average. Does it not favor common response patterns?

Hmm. I’m not really sure why anyone would write such a text. There is no “weighted proportionality” (or pathways). Is this a common conception?

You don’t need it to be an average of the real world to be an average. I can calculate as many average values as I want from entirely fictional worlds. It’s still a type of model which favors what it sees often over what it sees rarely. That’s a form of probability embedded, corresponding to a form of average.

I guess you picked up on the fact that transformers output a probability distribution. I don’t think anyone calls those an average, though you could have an average distribution. Come to think of it, before you use that to pick the next token, you usually mess with it a little to make it more or less “creative”. That’s certainly no longer an average.

You can see a neural net as a kind of regression analysis. I don’t think I have ever heard someone calling that a kind of average, though. I’m also skeptical if you can see a transformer as a regression but I don’t know this stuff well enough. When you train on some data more often than on other data, that is not how you would do a regression. Certainly, once you start RLHF training, you have left regression territory for good.

The GPTisms might be because they are overrepresented in the finetuning data. It might also be from the RLHF and/or brought out by the system prompt.

I accidentally clicked reply, sorry.

B) you do know there’s a lot of different definitions of average, right?

I don’t think that any definition applies to this. But I’m no expert on averages. In any case, the training data is not representative of the internet or anything. It’s also not training equally on all data and not only on such text. What you get out is not representative of anything.

A) I’ve not yet seen evidence to the contrary

You should worry more about whether you have seen evidence that supports what you are saying. So, what kind of evidence do you want? A tutorial on coding neural nets? The math? Video or text?

That’s a) not how it works and b) not averaging.

Who exactly creates the image is not the only issue and maybe I gave it too much prominence. Another factor is that the use of copyrighted training data is still being negotiated/litigated in the US. It will help if they tread lightly.

My opinion is that it has to be legal on first amendment grounds, or more generally freedom of expression. Fair use (a US thing) derives from the 1st amendment, though not exclusively. If AI services can’t be used for creating protected speech, like parody, then this severely limits what the average person can express.

What worries me is that the major lawsuits involve Big Tech companies. They have an interest in far-reaching IP laws; just not quite far-reaching enough to cut off their R&D.

Why would averaging lead to repetition of stereotypes?

Anyway, it’s hard to say LLMs output what they do. GPTisms may have to do with the system prompt or they may result from the fine-tuning. Either way, they don’t seem very internet average to me.