Comment by scrollaway
14 days ago
There's open source ML&DL projects dating back 12 years on my github, I don't know what you're on about.
Regardless, your claim is "LLMs being able to one-shot any higher-order complexity is entirely dependent on it already being in the training data." which is currently unfalsifiable, and known by every AI researcher to be most likely wrong. You've also said it's "been demonstrated". So stop wasting people's time and link to the demonstration instead of hand-waving a "do it yourself you're smart".
Good lord, it's like talking to a bloody climate change denier, I swear.
I have neural net applications I programmed entirely myself from 16 years ago and all I see from you are some python scripts so I guess I win this stupid game I wasn't even trying to play.
You haven't made a single technical point outside your bloviated claims to authority. I can safely assume you're a fraud because this is exactly how frauds speak. Actual scientists and engineers don't argue from authority they go and test the hypothesis for themselves, the fact that you balk at my suggestion to do this is amusing.
I said you can do a basic test because this is the best way to see it directly for yourself. It's very easy to do especially for an eminent machine learning visionary leader as yourself. You ask the LLM to produce two apps of similar complexity and technical challenge from a software perspective, one that is already in its training data and one that isn't and see which its more successful at. This isn't some controversial take, nor is it "unfalsifiable".
There's also hundreds of benchmarks demonstrating where the limitations are for LLMs, or you can study the progression of LLMs in mathematics and where the gains have been made and see that this also agrees with me. You can watch Chris Hay's videos demonstrating exactly how LLMs perform math layer by layer. Why is everyone using LLMs for search? Because it's an extremely efficient compression of all its training data. Did they figure out the Studio Ghibli art-style all on their own spontaneausly? No, they were trained on Studio Ghibli content. There's so many ways to come to this conclusion. But you seem to be too busy sniffing your own farts to be interested in learning anything about the field though.
This pointless test you're suggesting is a few countries removed from your initial suggestion, which was as a reminder: "The people using it or their employers just don't realize any competitor will be able to ask the LLM to replicate their product and it will copy the codebase they uploaded to them" (which, yes, is unfalsifiable given the search space)
I mean, are you seriously trying to back off that original ridiculous claim into a "code in the training data is more likely to appear in the output than code that isn't"? And I'm the fraud? As I said before, get over yourself.
Yes a test showing an LLM can reproduce an app in its training data and not an equivalent complexity app that is not in its training data is equivalent to proving the statement I made that having your codebase trained on will allow a competitor to copy your product.
And yes, you are obviously a fraud.