This is simultaneously hilarious and painfully familiar.
I can't remember the last time something I read on the internet got a laugh that hard.
The whole thing is brilliant.
The visual of this is completely hilarious.
If someone could tell me the difference between those last two at this point I'd be grateful and yes the entire thing is bitingly funny.
You'll get 100% of the way there, because, lacking any other training, it will only ever be able to reproduce this text verbatim.
Hence, 100%, hence mission accomplished.
Training tries to produce something that scores highly in training evaluations. With one data point, the evaluation is solely how closely the model output resembles the single input text.
Let's say you do that, and the training text is 58,100 tokens long. Let's say you ask the model to produce 58,101 tokens. Will it "reproduce [the] text verbatim"? No, it can't, because of the dissimilar requested length. Something "new" will come out.
It's also entirely possible that no matter how long you train, the model never converges on generating exactly the same output as its training data - you could end up with an average loss value of 0.001 instead of 0.0. It's not a perfectly deterministic process.
You're correct in principle, but in reality even with limited training data real-world models produce something that isn't exactly their training, especially when sampled stochastically. They're biased toward their training data, not forced to it.
Whether or not humans break from those shackles, I for one, am hoping Hollywood supplies us with wonderfully dystopian sci-fi entertainment for years to come.
It feels very similar to teaching pair programming and TDD. I can do it over remote, but there's a magic spark that happens in person that is really not replicable any other way.