Grammarly is using our identities without permission, https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/890921/g..., https://archive.ph/1w1oO
Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers
wired.com
1–10 of 214 posts
Grammarly is using our identities without permission, https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/890921/g..., https://archive.ph/1w1oO
Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers
wired.com
In other words an LLM can spit out a plausible "output of X", however it cannot encode the process that lead X to transform their inputs into their output.
The most interesting is the realization that if the LLM's input is only the output of a professional (human), then by definition the LLM cannot mimic the process the (human) professional applied to get from whatever input they had to produce the output. In other words an LLM can spit out a plausible "output of X", however it cannot encode the process that lead X to transform their inputs into their output.
The most interesting is the realization that if the LLM's input is only the output of a professional (human), then by definition the LLM cannot mimic the process the (human) professional applied to get from whatever input they had to produce the output. In other words an LLM can spit out a plausible "output of X", however it cannot encode the process that lead X to transform their inputs into their output.
that's so scummy. why they even needs "names"? it's a rhetorical question...
"The work is public, hence the name. It's well known, it's in the data. Who cares".
What will they do next? Create similar publications with domainsquatting and write all-AI articles with the "public" names?
Is it still fair use, then?
The most interesting is the realization that if the LLM's input is only the output of a professional (human), then by definition the LLM cannot mimic the process the (human) professional applied to get from whatever input they had to produce the output. In other words an LLM can spit out a plausible "output of X", however it cannot encode the process that lead X to transform their inputs into their output.
Is it not possible for the process of input to output be inferred by the llm and therefore applied to new inputs to create appropriate outputs.
Most importantly, negative but unused signals might not be available if the text does not mention it.