alt Hacker News> You seem set on conflating "training" an LLM with "learning" by a human.
"Learning" is an established word for this, happy to stick with "training" if that helps your comprehension.
> LLMs don't "learn" but they _do_ in some cases, faithfully regurgitate what they have been trained on.
> Legally, we call that "making a copy."
Yes, when you use a LLM to make a copy .. that is making a copy.
When you train a LLM... That isn't making a copy, that is training. No copy is created until output is generated that contains a copy.
Replies
> Learning" is an established word for this
Only by people attempting to muddy the waters.
> happy to stick with "training" if that helps your comprehension.
And supercilious dickheads (though that is often redundant).
> No copy is created until output is generated that contains a copy.
The copy exists, albeit not in human-discernable form, inside the LLM, else it could not be generated on demand.
Despite you claiming that "It works exactly the same for a LLM," no, it doesn't.
Everything which is able to learn is also alive, and we don't want to start to treat digital device and software as living beings.
If we are saying that the LLM learns things and then made the copy, then the LLM made the crime and should receive the legal punishment and be sent to jail, banning it from society until it is deemed safe to return. It is not like the installed copy is some child spawn from digital DNA and thus the parent continue to roam while the child get sent to jail. If we are to treat it like a living being that learns things, then every copy and every version is part of the same individual and thus the whole individual get sent to jail. No copy is created when installed on a new device.