Re: Proposal -- Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

Aigars Mahinovs dijo [Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 09:24:04PM +0200]:
>(...)
>So, very precisely speaking, modification of a LLM does *not* require the
>original training data. Recreating a LLM does. Also developing a new LLM
>with different training methods or training conditions does need some
>training data (ideally the original training data, especially to compare
>end performance). But all in all a developer on a Desert Island would be
>better off with a "binary" model to be modified than without it.
>
>Say for example that an IDE saves its configuration state not in a common
>text file, but as a binary memory dump. Say the maintainer of such a
>package would use their experience of the IDE and years of development to
>go through the GUI of this software to assemble a great setup configuration
>that is great for anyone starting to use the IDE and also has clues left
>around it how to tailor it further for your needs. This configuration (as a
>binary memory dump of the software state) is then distributed to the users
>as the default configuration. What is "the source" of it? Isn't this binary
>(that the GUI can both read and write) not the preferred form for
>modification? The maintainer can describe how he created the GUI state
>(document the training process), but not really include all his relevant
>experience (training data) that led him to believe that this state is the
>best for the new users. So what is LLama if not a **very** complex nvim
>configfile focused on autocomplete? :D Quite a few of those questions also
>apply to fonts (IMO).

Exactly what I tried to present in my latest mail. I think you did a better
job at explaining than myself. Thanks!