Everything you do or know is a derivative of your own training set. True original thoughts without context don’t exist, well at least in any way we can find out as every human is the product of their own training set.
Just out curiosity, what makes the code you write, more original than an LLMs who’s training set is way bigger than yours and likely will more variance in how to achieve same goal.
I’m not trying to be facetious but rather stoke the philosophical idea of the reality that humans aren’t as special and unique as we think we are.
> True original thoughts without context don’t exist, well at least in any way we can find out as every human is the product of their own training set.
Someone wrote the first murder mystery. It wasn't something we inherited from amoebas.
Someone wrote the first Regency romance. In fact, we know who it was - Georgette Heyer.
Someone invented calculus. We didn't get that passed down from the cave men via oral history or tribal knowledge.
We've dreamed of flying for millenia, but someone invented the first practical airplane - someone specific. Yes, they built on previous knowledge. But their step was still original. It had never been done before.
And so on, for idea after idea and original creation after original creation. They all originated at some time, with someone.
I’m not denying those achievements of those individuals at all. But I am saying that those individuals didn’t invent or discover those ideas out of the blue. There was information gathered up until that point in their lives that allowed them to make those connections and form ideas from there. No idea exists in a vacuum, yes someone needs to be the first to do anything, but all knowledge is passed on.
LLMs can sometimes come up with original things as well. Also even the people who invented new things like that took some inspiration or knowledge from things that exist
This seems absurdly reductionist to me. Wouldn't all work simply be attributable to the first proto-human who grabbed a stick or rock and used it as a tool? Surely even proto-humans communicated knowledge by demonstrations amongst themselves, even if they lacked complicated language.
Humans are just a collection of experiences that are using past data to make future assumptions. So yes, thank you Mr. Caveman because of your ingenuity of using a rock and a stick to create a hammer, we now have a full modern society built off the back of tools. But that seems ridiculous doesn’t it?
So at what point do we stop attributing the previous innovations that led to our current innovations? And why do we stop there? Would Mr. Caveman be the only special human to ever figure that out or could the argument be made that eventually someone else would have figured out how to make tools and therefore attribution is just pointless?
What I am trying to get at is, everything you do or create, is because of work the all of humanity has done. So pertaining to copyright, why should 1 single person claim an idea as solely theirs when that idea was not created in a vacuum.
I should also say, I am not discounting anyone’s work, but rather if the monetary reasons for creating became secondary, would the need for copyright even exist?
> Just out curiosity, what makes the code you write, more original than an LLMs
Indeed in many ways LLM code is more original than mine, as I limit myself to calling only functions that exist and producing code that will compile, unlike LLMs which have no such limitations. /s
Maybe, but it sounds like you’re operating within pretty restricted walls. Sometimes there are better ways to do things that you haven’t thought of but it requires experimentation.
That would be like assuming every piece of code you’ve ever written compiled perfectly on every run. Do you hold yourself to the same standard? Or do you give yourself some leeway because you walk through it, talk through, think through it and then come to a solution?
While I would say GPT is creative, the law doesn't have to agree with me.
Also, there's the possibility that all things creative are the human form of peacocks' tails, and if that's the case then the cost and difficulty matters more than the outcome, and any discussion based on capitalist incentives is fundamentally flawed.
This is an interesting thought. How much do we really owe to our teachers?
If it wasn't for the school that taught me to read all those years ago I wouldn't have a job!
Yes deduced to it’s lowest form but there’s billions of inputs that go into your own training set to produce the outcome you’re at.
Along the way, you’ve experienced trauma which nudged you a direction, you’ve been inspired by other people which left an impression in your mind, you’ve had people teach you 1 skill and another person teach you a different skill, and you combined them, life experiences that changed your outlook etc.
It’s less about the specific teachers and more about every single person and event that has happened to you is your own ‘training set’. But sometimes we can definitely point to a specific event or person who influenced us to where we are at today and I like to think of that just like model weights in current LLMs.
Just out curiosity, what makes the code you write, more original than an LLMs who’s training set is way bigger than yours and likely will more variance in how to achieve same goal.
I’m not trying to be facetious but rather stoke the philosophical idea of the reality that humans aren’t as special and unique as we think we are.