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.
Replace "LLM" with "student" and read that again. You don't just blindly give students output, you teach them, like what you are supposed to do with an LLM.
Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers
11–20 of 214 posts
Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers
#12that's so scummy. why they even needs "names"? it's a rhetorical question...
Moreover, they don't even apologize: "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?
Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moreover, they don't even apologize: "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?
yes i hate that. they still have the chutzpah of keeping doing it. and i am sure it's illegal in multiple legislation. because they are not writing articles where you can cite people, they are selling a product.
It's very enlightening, if you ask me.
Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers
#14The 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.
Replace "LLM" with "student" and read that again. You don't just blindly give students output, you teach them, like what you are supposed to do with an LLM.
Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers
#15The 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.
Replace "LLM" with "student" and read that again. You don't just blindly give students output, you teach them, like what you are supposed to do with an LLM.
Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replace "LLM" with "student" and read that again. You don't just blindly give students output, you teach them, like what you are supposed to do with an LLM.
Enough with this analgoy. It's flawed on so many levels. First and foremost, stop devaluing humanitiy and hyping up AI companies by parroting their party line. Second, LLMs don't learn. They can hold a very limited amount of context, as you know. And every time you need to start over. So fuck no, "teaching" and LLM is nothing like teaching an actual human.
Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers
#17that's so scummy. why they even needs "names"? it's a rhetorical question...
Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers
#18Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enough with this analgoy. It's flawed on so many levels. First and foremost, stop devaluing humanitiy and hyping up AI companies by parroting their party line. Second, LLMs don't learn. They can hold a very limited amount of context, as you know. And every time you need to start over. So fuck no, "teaching" and LLM is nothing like teaching an actual human.
It all went south when we started to call it "learning" instead of "fitting parameters".
This Grammarly thing seems to be a bastardized form of that not even sparing the dead.
I'd say that there was some incentive by the AI companies to muddle up the water here.
Re: Grammarly is offering ‘expert’ AI reviews from famous dead and living writers
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enough with this analgoy. It's flawed on so many levels. First and foremost, stop devaluing humanitiy and hyping up AI companies by parroting their party line. Second, LLMs don't learn. They can hold a very limited amount of context, as you know. And every time you need to start over. So fuck no, "teaching" and LLM is nothing like teaching an actual human.
It all went south when we started to call it "learning" instead of "fitting parameters".
I suggest „randomly adjusting parameters while trying to make things better“ as that accurately reflects the „precision“ that goes into stuffing LLMs with more data.