|
|
|
|
|
by eschaton
16 days ago
|
|
I found exact matches. I also found inexact matches, where C functions had been turned into C++ member functions and the like. “Recognized” does not somehow imply a lack of precision. The LLM the person used was trained on a very large corpus of Open Source code, and reproduced that code exactly. Just like LLMs have reproduced chapters of books and articles from the New York Times exactly. |
|
Were those functions trivial? With, say, 1% probability of someone who have not seen them writing them like that?
> Just like LLMs have reproduced chapters of books and articles from the New York Times exactly.
Have you read the articles? As far as I remember they fed large chunks of an article multiple times to an LLM to sometimes get a not-so-long exact match. It can mean that LLMs can infer a style and humans are predictable.