• 5 Posts
  • 304 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle












  • Speaking for LLMs, given that they operate on a next-token basis, there will be some statistical likelihood of spitting out original training data that can’t be avoided. The normal counter-argument being that in theory, the odds of a particular piece of training data coming back out intact for more than a handful of words should be extremely low.

    Of course, in this case, Google’s researchers took advantage of the repeat discouragement mechanism to make that unlikelihood occur reliably, showing that there are indeed flaws to make it happen.


  • Accumulated knowledge in our society really is frail. Take a computer mouse, tons of people are involved in making them, they’re considered extremely simple tools. Yet not one person on the planet could go out into nature, get the natural resources required, and without help turn those resources into a working computer mouse.


  • I’m not an expert, but I would say that it is going to be less likely for a diffusion model to spit out training data in a completely intact way. The way that LLMs versus diffusion models work are very different.

    LLMs work by predicting the next statistically likely token, they take all of the previous text, then predict what the next token will be based on that. So, if you can trick it into a state where the next subsequent tokens are something verbatim from training data, then that’s what you get.

    Diffusion models work by taking a randomly generated latent, combining it with the CLIP interpretation of the user’s prompt, then trying to turn the randomly generated information into a new latent which the VAE will then decode into something a human can see, because the latents the model is dealing with are meaningless numbers to humans.

    In other words, there’s a lot more randomness to deal with in a diffusion model. You could probably get a specific source image back if you specially crafted a latent and a prompt, which one guy did do by basically running img2img on a specific image that was in the training set and giving it a prompt to spit the same image out again. But that required having the original image in the first place, so it’s not really a weakness in the same way this was for GPT.






  • One of my favorite search ads that appeared in the mid 2000s happened when I was bored. I searched “grandpa” without any context just to see what would come up, because I really was that bored. One of the ads that appeared was one of those where they just shove your search in the title verbatim so someone not paying attention might think it was what they wanted.

    It said something like “Looking for grandpa? Find great deals here!” I don’t remember exactly what the second part said, but the “Looking for grandpa?” part made me bust out laughing. I then started searching other random stuff to try and get something equally stupid, but it didn’t capture me quite the same way. Either way, my boredom was alleviated.