Does anyone think that perhaps what they are afraid is that source code of such clone would be compared to the original and show evidence that maybe the model was already trained on the code of the game?
I think it’s very likely that these models are effectively being tricked into retrieving source code of projects from memory of seeing the actual source code in the biases. This is why some project are much easier to uncover than others.
The models are essentially a giant lossy compression applied to the training data.
They don’t store the loseless version of the training data sure, but that doesn’t mean it can’t reproduce something close enough to it, it’s literally how the whole thing works.
It’s long been proven that LLMs can produce exact copies of their training data. Not every piece of training data, of course, but enough where spitting out exact replicas of proprietary code is a legitimate concern. Not to mention that copies don’t need to be exact in order to be a problem.
Does anyone think that perhaps what they are afraid is that source code of such clone would be compared to the original and show evidence that maybe the model was already trained on the code of the game?
I think this is definitely a concern, yes.
I think it’s very likely that these models are effectively being tricked into retrieving source code of projects from memory of seeing the actual source code in the biases. This is why some project are much easier to uncover than others.
They aren’t being tricked. They are doing exactly what they were designed to do
The models don’t store access to their training data. So no, there’s no source code in the model to retrieve.
The models are essentially a giant lossy compression applied to the training data.
They don’t store the loseless version of the training data sure, but that doesn’t mean it can’t reproduce something close enough to it, it’s literally how the whole thing works.
It’s long been proven that LLMs can produce exact copies of their training data. Not every piece of training data, of course, but enough where spitting out exact replicas of proprietary code is a legitimate concern. Not to mention that copies don’t need to be exact in order to be a problem.
So why can they recreate entire articles from the New Yorker and complete functions from the training set? Don’t fall for the slop laundering.