And this strict liability will come with an expectation of insurance. The insurance policies will necessitate audits, which will actually improve security.
Strong disagree (especially under US law). Consider what this means for union organizing in the context of this 2022 NLRB memo.
> Under settled Board law, numerous practices employers may engage in using new
surveillance and management technologies are already unlawful. In cases involving
employer observation of open protected concerted activity and public union activity like
picketing or handbilling, the Board has recognized that “pictorial recordkeeping tends to
create fear among employees of future reprisals.”10 The Board accordingly balances an
employer’s justification for surveillance “against the tendency of that conduct to interfere with employees’ right to engage in concerted activity.”11 In that context, “the Board has long held that absent proper justification, the photographing of employees engaged in protected concerted activities violates the Act because it has a tendency to intimidate.”12
Provenance matters. An LLM cannot certify a Developer Certificate of Origin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developer_Certificate_of_Origi...) and a developer of integrity cannot certify the DCO for code emitted by an LLM, certainly not an LLM trained on code of unknown provenance. It is well-known that LLMs sometimes produce verbatim or near-verbatim copies of their training data, most of which cannot be used without attribution (and may have more onerous license requirements). It is also well-known that they don't "understand" semantics: they never make changes for the right reason.
The colloquial definitions have always been more cultural than technical, but it's become more acute recently.
> I think we should shed the idea that AI is a technological artifact with political features and recognize it as a political artifact through and through. AI is an ideological project to shift authority and autonomy away from individuals, towards centralized structures of power.
https://ali-alkhatib.com/blog/defining-ai
Many journals require LaTeX due to their post-acceptance pipeline. I use Typst for letters and those docs for which my PDF is the final version (modulo incomplete PDF/A in Typst), but for many journals in my field, I'd need a way to "compile to LaTeX" or the journal would need to implement a post-acceptance workflow for Typst (I'm not aware of any that have).
If you are asking a professional high-stakes questions about their expertise in a work context and they are just bullshitting you, it's fair to impugn their motives. Similarly if someone is using their considerable talent to place bullshit artists in positions of liability-free high-stakes decisions.
Your second comment is more flippant than mine, as even AI boosters like Chollet and LeCun have come around to LLMs being tangential to delivering on their dreams, and that's before engaging with formal methods, V&V, and other approaches used in systems that actually value reliability.
Their developers have intent. That intent is to give the perception of understanding/facts/logic without designing representations of such a thing, and with full knowledge that as a result, it will be routinely wrong in ways that would convey malicious intent if a human did it. I would say they are trained to deceive because if being correct was important, the developers would have taken an entirely different approach.
> customers at the national labs are not going to be sharing custom HPC code with AMD engineers
There are several co-design projects in which AMD engineers are interacting on a weekly basis with developers of these lab-developed codes as well as those developing successors to the current production codes. I was part of one of those projects for 6 years, and it was very fruitful.
> I suspect a substantial portion of their datacenter revenue still comes from traditional HPC customers, who have no need for the ROCm stack.
HIP/ROCm is the prevailing interface for programming AMD GPUs, analogous to CUDA for NVIDIA GPUs. Some projects access it through higher level libraries (e.g., Kokkos and Raja are popular at labs). OpenMP target offload is less widespread, and there are some research-grade approaches, but the vast majority of DOE software for Frontier and El Capitan relies on the ROCm stack. Yes, we have groaned at some choices, but it has been improving, and I would say the experience on MI-250X machines (Frontier, Crusher, Tioga) is now similar to large A100 machines (Perlmutter, Polaris). Intel (Aurora) remains a rougher experience.
The point is that LLMs are never right for the right reason. Humans who understand the subject matter can make mistakes, but they are mistakes of a different nature. The issue reminds me of this from Terry Tao (LLMs being not-even pre-rigorous, but adept at forging the style of rigorous exposition):
It is perhaps worth noting that mathematicians at all three of the above stages of mathematical development can still make formal mistakes in their mathematical writing. However, the nature of these mistakes tends to be rather different, depending on what stage one is at:
1. Mathematicians at the pre-rigorous stage of development often make formal errors because they are unable to understand how the rigorous mathematical formalism actually works, and are instead applying formal rules or heuristics blindly. It can often be quite difficult for such mathematicians to appreciate and correct these errors even when those errors are explicitly pointed out to them.
2. Mathematicians at the rigorous stage of development can still make formal errors because they have not yet perfected their formal understanding, or are unable to perform enough “sanity checks” against intuition or other rules of thumb to catch, say, a sign error, or a failure to correctly verify a crucial hypothesis in a tool. However, such errors can usually be detected (and often repaired) once they are pointed out to them.
3. Mathematicians at the post-rigorous stage of development are not infallible, and are still capable of making formal errors in their writing. But this is often because they no longer need the formalism in order to perform high-level mathematical reasoning, and are actually proceeding largely through intuition, which is then translated (possibly incorrectly) into formal mathematical language.
The distinction between the three types of errors can lead to the phenomenon (which can often be quite puzzling to readers at earlier stages of mathematical development) of a mathematical argument by a post-rigorous mathematician which locally contains a number of typos and other formal errors, but is globally quite sound, with the local errors propagating for a while before being cancelled out by other local errors. (In contrast, when unchecked by a solid intuition, once an error is introduced in an argument by a pre-rigorous or rigorous mathematician, it is possible for the error to propagate out of control until one is left with complete nonsense at the end of the argument.)
The cross-over can be around 500 (https://doi.org/10.1109/SC.2016.58) for 2-level Strassen. It's not used by regular BLAS because it is less numerically stable (a concern that becomes more severe for the fancier fast MM algorithms). Whether or not the matrix can be compressed (as sparse, fast transforms, or data-sparse such as the various hierarchical low-rank representations) is more a statement about the problem domain, though it's true a sizable portion of applications that produce large matrices are producing matrices that are amenable to data-sparse representations.
> It's trivially easy to find a real-world situation where conservation of energy does not hold (any system with friction, which is basically all of them)
Conservation of energy absolutely still holds, but entropy is not conserved so the process is irreversible. If your model doesn't include heat, then discrete energy won't be conserved in a process that produces heat, but that's your modeling choice, not a statement about physics. It is common to model such processes using a dissipation potential.
They tripled the price of my grandmother's service over a five year period despite no speed increases so I figure they were going to charge you more regardless.
If you spend weeks drilling flash cards on copyrighted code, then produced pages of near-verbatim copies with copyright stripped, any court would find you to have violated the copyright. A lot of people right now are banking on "it's not illegal when AI does it", and part of that strategy is to make "AI" out to be something more than it is. That strategy has many parallels to cryptocurrency hyping.
The LM industry valuation would be way smaller if they were not laundering behavior that would be illegal if a human did it. If "AI" were required to practice clean-room design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design) to avoid infringing copyright, we would laugh at the ineptitude. If people believed the FTC-CFPB-DOJ-EEOC joint statement was going to lead to successful prosecutions, the industry valuation would collapse. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/EEOC-CRT-FTC-CF...
Language models don't understand anything, they just manipulate tokens. It is a much harder task to write a spec (that humans and courts can review if needed to determine is not infringement) and (with a separately trained tool) implement the spec. The tech just isn't ready and it's not clear that language models will ever get there.
What language models could do easily is to obfuscate better so the license violation is harder to prove. That's behavior laundering -- no amount of human obfuscation (e.g., synonym substitution, renaming variables, swapping out control structures) can turn a plagiarized work into one that isn't. If we (via regulators and courts) let the Altmans of the world pull their stunt, they're going to end up with a government-protected monopoly on plagiarism-laundering.
Even MIT licensed code requires you to preserve the copyright and permission notice.
If a human did what these language models are doing (output derivative works with the copyright and license stripped), it would be a license violation. When humans want to create a new implementation with clean IP, they have one team study the IP-encumbered code and write a spec, then a different team writes a new implementation according to the spec. LM developers could have similar practices, with separately-trained components that create an auditable intermediate representation and independently create new code based on that representation. The tech isn't up to that task and the LM authors think they're going to get away with laundering what would be plagiarism if a human did it.
> it's pretty clear that GPT is producing an amazing level of comprehension of what a series of words means
It comprehends nothing at all. It's amazing at constructing sequences of words to which human readers ascribe meaning and perceive to be responsive to prompts.