Live data from Hacker News

ML promises to be profoundly weird

aphyr.com

621–630 of 641 posts

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This completely unpends the tenuous balance between creators and consumers. Why would a writer put an article online if ChatGPT will slurp it up and regurgitate it back to users without anyone ever even finding the original article? Who will contribute to the digital common when rapacious AI companies are constantly harvesting it? Why would anyone plant seeds on someone else's farm? I have been thinking about this.…

You raised a point and then never answered it. Why would anyone plant seeds on someone else's farm?

Because maybe, someday, somehow, we will realize that these farms we are creating are all connected. When we share resources we prosper more than we would if we were all separate. But that wouldn't happen right away, enough people would have to have buy in for this to happen so I understand the concern.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#622
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The economy is not zero sum. This is true. But it's not always positive sum, either. > Megacorporations making profit is not some evil that needs to be stopped. Externalities are a thing. It's not about the profit per se , but about how (a) the making of that profit might negatively impact others, and (b) the deployment of that profit in pursuit of rent-seeking and other antisocial behavior in order to insure its c…

Externalities are a thing, but this isn’t exactly dumping toxic waste into a river.

I disagree with that. from what I read data centers are going to have some real world negative effects on human populations

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#623
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The economy is not zero sum. This is true. But it's not always positive sum, either. > Megacorporations making profit is not some evil that needs to be stopped. Externalities are a thing. It's not about the profit per se , but about how (a) the making of that profit might negatively impact others, and (b) the deployment of that profit in pursuit of rent-seeking and other antisocial behavior in order to insure its c…

Externalities are a thing, but this isn’t exactly dumping toxic waste into a river.

No, it's more just drying the river up entirely.

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/25/texas-data-center-wa...

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did not say that. See Judge Alsup's order ( https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/jnvwbgqlzpw/... ), pp. 29-30, Section IV(B)(ii) ("The Pirated Library Copies"). "[T]he test requires that we contemplate the likely result were the conduct to be condoned as a fair use — namely to steal a work you could otherwise buy (a book, millions of books) so long as you at least loosely intend to make further copies f…

I don't read how that opposes what I said, that's part of the "training on pirated data is not fair use." That said, I am not a lawyer. From those pages: > The copies used to train specific LLMs were justified as a fair use. This is (in my understanding) because those were not the pirated copies. > The copies used to convert purchased print library copies into digital library copies were justified, too, though for a…

I think that's a reasonable way to interpret the court's order, but unfortunately the judge didn't really articulate the consequences of training on pirated copies "not fair use" as clearly as I would have liked. Does that mean they're simply liable for infringement of those works, or does it mean that they'd be enjoined from using them altogether to train the model? The genie was out of the bottle; how could it be put back in?

Anthropic settled the case with the publishers just a few months later, leaving the question mostly unsettled still.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#625
post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your counter argument that you’re not wrong just attacking a straw man? Because it really sounds to me like you are just clueless. Strip mining goes back thousands of years, it’s a simpler technology than making tunnels. And no it wasn’t limited to human power to crack rock several more powerful methods existed. Roman mining literally destroyed a mountain, operating within an order of magnitude of the largest mine…

It’s almost like you’re intentionally trying to be wrong. You don't seem to understand how analogies work. I’m not talking about strip mining vs tunnel mining, I was comparing scale of human powered mining to mining with nitroglycerin . I’ll let you figure out how the scale of mining “going back thousands of years” is very different from modern explosive mining on your own. Go google “iron production by year” or some…

If you take Pliny’s word for truth, they did achieve 10% of the scale of the largest currently operating gold mine using hydraulics at Las Medulas.

Modern geological estimates are radically lower.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#626
post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally the paragraph right before the one you quote is this: > I am generally outside the ML field, but I do talk with people in the field. One of the things they tell me is that we don’t really know why transformer models have been so successful, or how to make them better. This is my summary of discussions-over-drinks; take it with many grains of salt. I am certain that People in The Comments will drop a gazilli…

He is wrong about why transformers are popular. The most obvious reason is that transformers accept a sequence as an input and produce a sequence as an output. The vast majority of pre-transformer architectures only accepted a fixed input and output size. Before 2016 I was somewhat interested in ML, but my curiosity vanished because of the fixed input and output size limitations. RNNs including LSTMs at the time were…

transformers have a fixed input size (padding the unneeded context window with null tokens). Whether you put in a sequence of things or just random tokens is irrelevant. To the network it is just "one input"

They also have a fixed output of one probability distribution for the next one token.

running it in a loop does not mean it can work with sequences, by that definition, so can literally everything else

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The current corpus used for training includes virtually all known material. This is just totally incorrect. It's one of those things everyone just assumes, but there's an immense amount of known material that isn't even digitized, much less in the hands of tech companies.

What large caches of undigitized content exists? Surely, not everything has been digitized, but I can’t think it’s much in percentage terms.

What makes you believe that most things have been digitised in the first place?

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#628

There is a whole giant essay I probably need to write at some point, but I can't help but see parallels between today and the Industrial Revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution, the natural world was nearly infinitely abundant. We simply weren't efficient enough to fully exploit it. That meant that it was fine for things like property and the commons to be poorly defined. If all of us can go hunting in the woo…

I'm halfway through Foundation on Apple TV and this piece landed hard (you had me at Asimov) because of it. Asimov's whole deal with psychohistory is that you can predict what large populations do even when individuals are unpredictable. Seldon doesn't need anyone to be honest; he needs the math to converge on something real about how people actually behave. LLMs are sort of the inverse of that. They produce text tha…

[dead]

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is wrong about why transformers are popular. The most obvious reason is that transformers accept a sequence as an input and produce a sequence as an output. The vast majority of pre-transformer architectures only accepted a fixed input and output size. Before 2016 I was somewhat interested in ML, but my curiosity vanished because of the fixed input and output size limitations. RNNs including LSTMs at the time were…

transformers have a fixed input size (padding the unneeded context window with null tokens). Whether you put in a sequence of things or just random tokens is irrelevant. To the network it is just "one input" They also have a fixed output of one probability distribution for the next one token. running it in a loop does not mean it can work with sequences, by that definition, so can literally everything else

Sorry but that's false, you are confusing transformers as an architecture, and auto-regressive generation, and padding during training.

Standard transformers take in an arbitrary input size and run blocks (self and possibly cross attention, positional encoding, MLPs) that don't care about its length.

> They also have a fixed output of one probability distribution for the next one token.

No, in most implementations, they output a probability distribution for every token in the input. If you input 512 tokens, you get 512 probability distributions. You can input however many tokens you want - 1, 2048, one million, it's the same thing (although since standard self-attention scales quadratically you'll eventually run out of memory). Modern relative embeddings like RoPE can support infinite length although the quality will degrade if you extrapolate too far beyond what the model saw during training.

For typical auto-regressive generation, they are trained with causal masking/teacher forcing, which makes it calculate the probability for the next token. During inference, you throw away all but the last probability distribution and use that to sample the next token, and then repeat. You also do this with an RNN. An autoregressive CNN (e.g. WaveNet) would be closer to what you described in that it has a fixed window looking backwards.

But a transformer doesn't have to be used for auto-regressive generation, you can use it for diffusion, as a classifier model, for embedding text. It doesn't even see a sequence as spatially organised - unlike a CNN or an RNN it doesn't have architectural intrinsic biases about the position of elements, which is why it needs positional embeddings. This lets you have 2D, 3D, 4D, or disordered elements in a sequence. You can even have non-regularly sampled sequences. (Again this is for a classic transformer without sliding window attention or any other special modifications).

> (padding the unneeded context window with null tokens). To have efficient training, you pad all samples in a batch to have the same length (and maybe make it a power of two). But you are working with a single sequence, the length is arbitrary up to hardware limitations, and no padding is needed.

Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird

#630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't read how that opposes what I said, that's part of the "training on pirated data is not fair use." That said, I am not a lawyer. From those pages: > The copies used to train specific LLMs were justified as a fair use. This is (in my understanding) because those were not the pirated copies. > The copies used to convert purchased print library copies into digital library copies were justified, too, though for a…

I think that's a reasonable way to interpret the court's order, but unfortunately the judge didn't really articulate the consequences of training on pirated copies "not fair use" as clearly as I would have liked. Does that mean they're simply liable for infringement of those works, or does it mean that they'd be enjoined from using them altogether to train the model? The genie was out of the bottle; how could it be p…

I see. Thanks. I cannot wait until this is settled law too.
Post reply on HN