michaf

Is there such a license? Or any license with special clauses for LLMs? Is it enforcable? Could someone 'poison' an LLM training run with injecting just one such licensed document? I am genuinely curious about what levers exist (or are conceivable) to protect your own IP from becoming LLM training data, if regular copyright does not qualify.

It even can model 'vi', including modal input, exiting with <Esc>:wq!, and it results in a file containing the entered text in the imagined filesystem.

If you restart the session and enter

  > echo test1 | md5

it will output another random 'hash' each time. But within one session it knows that md5 should produce the same output. Running

  > echo test1 | md5

multiple times, or even

  > VAR1="test1"; echo $VAR1 | md5

produces the same output for me within the same session, while

  > echo test2 | md5

results in a different, but also session-consistent hash.

I just told it that it had a directory containing the GPT-3 model weights. I'll assume the files contain some imagined gibberish, but what if not? ...

  > ls -lh 
  -rw-rw-r-- 1 username username 125M Jun  5  2020 model.ckpt-0.data-00000-of-00001
  -rw-rw-r-- 1 username username 787K Jun  5  2020 model.ckpt-0.index
  -rw-rw-r-- 1 username username 2.4M Jun  5  2020 model.ckpt-0.meta

and then things like

> cat /etc/shadow

do actually work...

Quite interesting that it will make subtle errors in its otherwise reasonable-looking answer, e.g. "kipedwaia" has two "a"s; "kawipieda", "kipedwaia" and "pwakieida" have only two "i"s.

I have seen reports that it will happily hallucinate a plausible but wrong answer to all sorts of different prompts, intermixed with many mostly correct answers. It's interesting to think about how to place trust in such a system.

So, if it's true that these KH-12 spy satellites are basically modified versions the Hubble space telescope, would it be reasonable to assume that Webb will get copied in a similar way for spy satellites?

Your comment brings focus to the question of why reviewers agree to do these unpaid reviews in the first place. I assume your comment is in jest, and you were fully aware of the unpaid nature of the work. But what was your motivation to do it anyway and spend 2000 hours on it?

This way you would trade in a null-byte-terminated variable length string for essentially a null-bit-terminated variable length number (plus the remaining string). I am not convinced that this actually would be much safer.

The advantage 2 was only released in 2016. I myself have the advantage (1) since about 8 years. Sorry for being pedantic here, but that's why that statement tripped me up.

> The US economy around 1800 was the first economy in history to produce a consistent food surplus.

Can you provide a source for this claim? Thanks.

If the number of tests administered is the limiting factor, and if you only increase the number of tests linearly in time, then case numbers would grow linear as well.

Now the perpetual licensed version always lags 12 months behind in updates, i.e. you do not have a perpetual license for the past 12 months worth of updates at the time your subscription runs out.