Comment by jtmarl1n

12 hours ago

So the LLM would have done all of this on its own? Why is it ok to acknowledge the human was needed but it’s not a collaboration? Is there a defined percentage of ownership required to make the word collaboration valid?

14 comments

jtmarl1n

Reply
true_religion  12 hours ago

We focus on the tool because that is what makes it novel.

Hearing a guy built his home in a week with the power of nails and a hammer would have been novel in era of mortise and tenon.

I actually found an article about raving about how fast nail production was thanks to machining advances in 1790 and that it would bring great value: https://digital.libraries.psu.edu/digital/collection/pabookn...

It’s seems to me humans haven’t changed, just which machines we praise.

jstanley  12 hours ago

If you get someone to build you a house and they do it on their own, does that not count because they wouldn't have done it if you didn't pay them to do it?

Technically you built it yourself and the builder was just a minor collaborator?

Macuyiko  12 hours ago

From the article:

"However, the most astonishing thing about this break is that the GPT–6 Astra did it entirely on its own. Carter Leffer only directed GPT–6 Astra to see if it could break any of the unbroken Enigma messages published on the Crypto Cellar Research web page."

I mean... I'm all for collaboration but I think this case is pretty clear, no?

  • alerighi  12 hours ago

    I mean, the LLM could do it even without all the HUMAN knowledge that was stealed during training about the Enigma machine?

    We are fooling to me, there is no intelligence in these models, they just apply methods that were invented by humans without any consciousness on what they are doing.

    • allturtles  12 hours ago

      You could say exactly the same about humans. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Every human depends on a vast corpus of prior human knowledge to be able to accomplish anything. This doesn't mean they have no intelligence.

      4 replies →