The erasure of Luigi Mangione
The erasure of Luigi Mangione
The saga on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange, and how tech always serves the ruling class.
Right now, on Stack Overflow, Luigi Magione’s account has been renamed. Despite having fruitfully contributed to the network he is stripped of his name and his account is now known as “user4616250”.
This appears to violate the creative commons license under which Stack Overflow content is posted.
When the author asked about this:
As of yet, Stack Exchange has not replied to the above post, but they did promptly and within hours gave me a year-long ban for merely raising the question. Of course, they did draft a letter which credited the action to other events that occurred weeks before where I merely upvoted contributions from Luigi and bountied a few of his questions.
You're viewing a single thread.
Stack Overflow has been toxic for a long time already. It's one of the things that a lot of people seem pleased to see AI devour.
I've read it is still well valued because people will keep asking questions there when LLM can't answer, so they remain a precious source of post LLM curated Q&A.
...for now.
Until it's just AIs answering questions asked by other AIs while human admins block human accounts..
Valuable information source becomes bot recycling machine..? Hey, I Reddit before!
Yeah, AI has become good enough at this point that you can provide it with a large blob of context material - such as API documentation, source code, etc. - and then have it come up with its own questions and answers about it to create a corpus of "synthetic data" to train on. And you can fine-tune the synthetic data to fit the format and style that you want, such as telling it not to be snarky or passive-aggressive or whatever.
It can reproduce an api. Can't solve actual problems. LLMs are completely incapable of innovation.
That's not really true though.. They come up with brand new sentences all the time.
No, they can only take from things in their models.
Moreover, all of them use statistics, typically Bayesian, to get the results. What you get from an LLM is essentially an average* of the model data. This is why feeding LLM output into a model is so toxic, it's already the average.
- Yes I know it's not really the average, but for laymen us good enough comparison.
They only take from the statistical distributions of words in the context of preceding words (which is why they never say "the the" etc, why the grammar is nearly always correct). But that doesn't mean that whole sentences are lifted from the source material. There are near infinite paths through those word distributions, and many have never been produced by humans, so LLMs do produce sentences that have never been uttered before.
They couldn't produce new conceptual context spaces in the way that humans can sometimes, but they can produce new combinations within existing context spaces.
Except they are. You ask about Discworld characters and it gives you direct full quotes from the books.
You realise "LLMs can quote verbatim" is not a contractdiction of "LLMs can create brand new sentences", right?