Come on man. This is exactly what we have been saying all the time. These “AIs” are not creating novel text or ideas. They are just regurgitating back the text they get in similar contexts. It’s just they don’t repeat things vebatim because they use statistics to predict the next word. And guess what, that’s plagiarism by any real world standard you pick, no matter what tech scammers keep saying. The fact that laws haven’t catched up doesn’t change the reality of mass plagiarism we are seeing …

Just because that happened in this context doesn't automatically mean that this is happening in all contexts. It's absolutely possible, and I'd love to see a conclusive study on this topic, but the example of one LLM version doing this in one application context in one case isn't clear enough proof either way. If a question doesn't have many answers (be they real or fake), and one answer seems to solve the problem with explicit instructions, you'd want the AI system to give the necessary parts of those same instructions, which is what happened here. This is how I expected and understand these systems to work - so I'd love to see examples of what people exactly said that GP is arguing against, because I don't know the argument they are arguing against.

And people like you keep insisting that “AIs” are stealing ideas, not verbatim copies of the words like that makes it ok.

I didn't insist on anything, I wanted an explanation of the position GP is arguing against. I'm of the opinion that any commercial generative AI use should be completely forbidden until a proper framework is built that ensures compensation of sources before anything else - but you don't care about my position, because anything that doesn't resemble "AI bad" must automatically mean "AI good" to you.

Except LLMs have no concept of ideas, and you people keep repeating that even when shown evidence, like this post, that they don’t think.

Can you define "idea" and show me an actual study on this topic? Because I have seen too many examples both for and against all of these grand theses. I don't know where things lie. But you can't show that something is unable to do thing A because it did thing B, without showing that B is diametrically opposed to A. You have to properly define "idea" and define an experiment for that purpose.

And even if they did, repeat with me, this is still plagiarism even if this was done by a human. Stop excusing the big tech companies man

I haven't said that this is or is not plagiarism. Stop being so rabid about anything not explicitly anti-AI - I'm not making pro-AI points.

But the system isn't designed for that, why would you expect it to do so? Did somebody tell the OP that these systems work by citing a source, and the issue is that it doesn't do that?

You didn't read properly, I was specifically talking about high humidity. That's the situation the monkeys who have died were in. Temperatures feel completely different based on the humidity - 35°C at 100% humidity is equivalent to 71°C at 0% humidity.

If your issue with the result is plagiarism, what would have been a non-plagiarizing way to reproduce the information? Should the system not have reproduced the information at all? If it shouldn't reproduce things it learned, what is the system supposed to do?

Or is the issue that it reproduced an idea that it probably only read once? I'm genuinely not sure, and the original comment doesn't have much to go on.

I'll get downvoted for this, but: what exactly is your point? The AI didn't reproduce the text verbatim, it reproduced the idea. Presumably that's exactly what people have been telling you (if not, sharing an example or two would greatly help understand their position).

If those "reply guys" argued something else, feel free to disregard. But it looks to me like you're arguing against a straw man right now.

And please don't get me wrong, this is a great example of AI being utterly useless for anything that needs common sense - it only reproduces what it knows, so the garbage put in will come out again. I'm only focusing on the point you're trying to make.

Those were their first tests, of course there is a high chance they won't run on all system configurations (especially since things like WINE comparability were likely detailed later). You should try artifacts built with the current version of the format (3 IIRC) if you want to give it a fair shot.

My guy, you're not some mega special advanced human that can somehow live in higher wet-bulb temperatures than everyone else. You'd die just like me and any other human.

Look up what wet bulb temperatures mean, because no, you don't love 44° Celsius at high humidity:

Even heat-adapted people cannot carry out normal outdoor activities past a wet-bulb temperature of 32 °C (90 °F), equivalent to a heat index of 55 °C (131 °F). A reading of 35 °C (95 °F) – equivalent to a heat index of 71 °C (160 °F) – is considered the theoretical human survivability limit for up to six hours of exposure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature

I care about humans perishing due to choices others have made. It's fucked up to tell poor people "I don't care you're dying because you're of the same species as rich assholes who cause the world to burn".

Wait, do you guys not add that to your character sheets?

Rats truly are the goats of the lemon grass

I'm not an X-Men fan and haven't watched MCU stuff in a while, yet I might watch a new X-Men movie in the cinema if it comes close to the quality of 97. I really hope they don't fuck this up, that team did some amazing work.