Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI releases larger GPT-2 model

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: OpenAI releases larger GPT-2 model

#71

Post by gwern »

leod wrote: post #68
gwern wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gradient accumulation and gradient checkpointing are orthogonal. You might want to use them simultaneously. If I had to compare them, I'd say that accumulation is about working on a minibatch datapoint by datapoint and faking being able to run an entire large minibatch in a single shot, while checkpointing is about working on a model layer by layer and faking being able to run an entire model in a single shot. The pr…

Thank you so much for your comprehensive answer, this helps a lot. If I understand nshepperd's code correctly, it uses a constant and small learning rate. Do you know if this works better than the learning rate schedule that is usually used for Transformer models ( https://www.tensorflow.org/alpha/tutorials/text/transformer_... )?

It's a constant, yes. We haven't tried any other learning rate schedules (for my poetry GPT-2s, I simply drop the LR 10x each day or so). I have no idea if this is optimal for transfer learning or not.

Re: OpenAI releases larger GPT-2 model

#72

Post by bufferoverflow »

septor wrote: post #35

Here’s a summary: we are aware of the fact that this model will harm society and we are releasing it anyway. We are fiddling around with the way it’s released in an attempt to absolve ourselves of blame while simultaneously collecting the profit in the form of a juicy acquisition. The net result of these advanced forms of signal processing will be negative. Nobody has come forward to prove that they will benefit soci…

It's the whole premise of Open AI - they democratize AI, give everyone access. Since it's known to be possible, someone else would be able to repeat it anyway.

Saying hyperbolic things like "the whole world stands to be burned" is silly. They aren't giving everyone a nuke.

Things like deep fakes and synthesized speech are much much worse, since you can make any politician say anything you want, and an average person wouldn't be able to tell it's fake.

Re: OpenAI releases larger GPT-2 model

#73

Post by TaylorAlexander »

imranq wrote: post #66

While I appreciate that this is a large advance, I’m worried that these releases will make the internet completely worthless after some time. If AI can come up with fake news, fake text, fake videos and pretty much anything the user wants it to, then we will be flooded with biased content that’s untrustable. There’s probably some critical percentage of AI generated content on the web that guarantees this happening. (…

Their release strategy is to provide lower quality models to the public while giving research partners access to the full models. The goal of this approach is to let researchers devise methods of detecting and counteracting this new technology. It’s kind of like “this technology is going to exist so we need to prepare responsibly.”

Re: OpenAI releases larger GPT-2 model

#74

Post by tensor »

septor wrote: post #35

Here’s a summary: we are aware of the fact that this model will harm society and we are releasing it anyway. We are fiddling around with the way it’s released in an attempt to absolve ourselves of blame while simultaneously collecting the profit in the form of a juicy acquisition. The net result of these advanced forms of signal processing will be negative. Nobody has come forward to prove that they will benefit soci…

Nobody has proven these technologies will be a net negative either, there are many positive applications.

>These companies are playing with fire, and the whole world stands to be burned. Wake the fuck up.

Your tone and arrogance is very unwelcome.

Re: OpenAI releases larger GPT-2 model

#75

Post by opdahl »

Felz wrote: post #44
opdahl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried adding it but I get the error message "This bot is private. Only the bot owner can add it."

Oh, sorry. I forgot to mark it as public. Feel free to try again.

Yeh it works now!

Tried with this input: "what is your purpose as a bot?" Response: "There are a handful of examples available out there that seem fairly plausible as a good initial goal. These examples might get you started: A bot with a purpose to collect information (and I'm going to assume that you have to have an intent, so I'll be using that term and not the verb for my example). Or a bot with a purpose to help out a customer that wants something delivered to him/her by mistake. Or a bot that wants to promote your site to the entire universe of bots. For example, here in New Zealand, that's a fairly common use of botnets as far as I can see: How do you know I have enough information to set it up? Let's say I have an account with the website at /r/frugal, what if you are already running bots that want what I need? How do you know these bots would actually be helpful? One answer I see is"

Pretty cool stuff, but I see your description as "semi-coherent gibberish" fits really well. I could see something like this get pretty interesting in the future, where you, for instance, could maybe populate a discord server or twitter chat with semi plausible noise to fake popularity.

Re: OpenAI releases larger GPT-2 model

#76

Post by septor »

tensor wrote: post #74
septor wrote: post #35

Here’s a summary: we are aware of the fact that this model will harm society and we are releasing it anyway. We are fiddling around with the way it’s released in an attempt to absolve ourselves of blame while simultaneously collecting the profit in the form of a juicy acquisition. The net result of these advanced forms of signal processing will be negative. Nobody has come forward to prove that they will benefit soci…

Nobody has proven these technologies will be a net negative either, there are many positive applications. >These companies are playing with fire, and the whole world stands to be burned. Wake the fuck up. Your tone and arrogance is very unwelcome.

Wake the frick up.

The burden is on your camp to prove it’s claims, not mine. If the burden of proof is on anyone, then it should be on the people who claim it’s safe because we stand to lose everything if it isn’t. If my lot is wrong, we lose nothing.

Unwelcome huh? I’ve been here longer than you have.

Re: OpenAI releases larger GPT-2 model

#77

Post by septor »

jcims wrote: post #45
septor wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not correct. What you are saying is that there is no plausible organized effort that could stop or slow the creation of signal processing models that will have pronounced negative impacts. The error is on two levels: you are using too much analogy with other technologies. And you are writing off the possibility of stopping ai when it’s still not clear that it can’t be stopped. This isn’t something that can be…

I think if you try to be less cynical about what OpenAI is doing you might even find them an ally to your perspective. Facebook throwing pocket change at an AI ethics org and Google's rather embarrassing failure at staffing an ethics panel of its own is evidence that we've got bicycle brakes on a freight train. OpenAI suffered a ton of blowback for not just releasing the full model from the start. You can read their…

I’ve already read the blog post and watched the video. I’m not just some idiot who reads a few headlines and then comes to this conclusion. I found lex’s conversation to be frustrating beyond description. These people simply don’t understand the consequences of this technology. They think that an ethics board will help in some way. They are completely missing the point.

“What’s going to stop bad things from happening?” “The charter” Good fucking god.

Re: OpenAI releases larger GPT-2 model

#78

Post by ddalex »

zrm wrote: post #12
jchw wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(e.g. Hacker News titles from a retrained 117M model: https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-gpt-2 ) Wow, thats great. “The Bullshit Bubble” “Fuck you, Bootstrap” “We should give up on America” - they’re practically comedy, yet very believable too.

Has anybody tried feeding it comedy to begin with to see what it spits back out?

I can provide more details next week once the article is out, but I've fed it a corpus of one liners and it started to produce weird and sometimes very funny liners :)

Re: OpenAI releases larger GPT-2 model

#79

Post by septor »

PostOnce wrote: post #46
septor wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not correct. What you are saying is that there is no plausible organized effort that could stop or slow the creation of signal processing models that will have pronounced negative impacts. The error is on two levels: you are using too much analogy with other technologies. And you are writing off the possibility of stopping ai when it’s still not clear that it can’t be stopped. This isn’t something that can be…

What do you mean "Could we sense when someone was trying to do it", are we talking mandatory computer inspections, government-enforced walled gardens, and the death of the general purpose computer? lol, if you thought gun control was hard... Also, yeah, you could do it in your basement without being detected. You can do it in the cloud, too, a lot of us here have the skills and resources to do it, but why spend time…

Ai in general is an area of active research. The AIs that will bring about the end of the world do not exist — they are not simply in need of an implementation.

Right now ai is driven by the collective effort of many research entities. Universities and private businesses. Ai research in those places can be shut down very effectively with regulation. That would probably be enough to buy us centuries because progress in ai depends heavily on this open community of research.

Making the use of high level signal processing illegal for business would further delay ai because there would be no incentive for anyone to develop models for profit. We audit taxes and lots of other things, auditing signal processing is not obviously impossible.

As you mention, cloud computing is a thing. Cloud computing will likely be the nucleation point from which the first agi springs. It should be shut down. Through regulation or through the dismantling of the internet it should be shut down. Shutting it down would buy us lots of valuable time.

ICs are not something you can make in your back yard. Controlling the compute density and energy efficiency or any other aspect of ICs is trivial because they require huge factories to manufacture. Huge amounts of space, energy and money are required to run those fabs. And there aren’t very many of them. Therefore they are highly susceptible to regulation and public oversight. We could stop the production of ICs that are too powerful.

So, here you are in your basement. You are trying to train an AGI. You are stuck with old hardware that you somehow bought on the black market. You are risking your life to do it because it’s highly illegal. You don’t have any investment, legal or otherwise, because it’s highly illegal and also stands to make no profit for anyone. You don’t have access to cloud computing. The training is very slow. It is made even slower by the fact that you have to slowly charge a gigantic battery array before each training because without batteries the spike in wattage would be inexplicable for a house in the suburbs and probably trigger a visit from the power authority. The probability that anyone would succeed in this scenario is not zero, but it’s very low. Very, very low. And I think it would save the world.

Re: OpenAI releases larger GPT-2 model

#80

Post by disconcision »

imranq wrote: post #66

While I appreciate that this is a large advance, I’m worried that these releases will make the internet completely worthless after some time. If AI can come up with fake news, fake text, fake videos and pretty much anything the user wants it to, then we will be flooded with biased content that’s untrustable. There’s probably some critical percentage of AI generated content on the web that guarantees this happening. (…

I've seen a lot of posts along these lines but I'm unclear as to what specific scenarios this technology precipitates. Like what, concretely, is the concern? There's already a lot of bad content online, and anyone who cares about information quality already relies on filteration through human editors. Like I can buy the idea in principle that adding orders of magnitude more noise in the system might fundamentally distabilize it... Again. But it's really not clear to me?
Post reply on HN