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

GPT-2: 6-Month Follow-Up

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–98 of 98 posts

Re: GPT-2: 6-Month Follow-Up

#91

Post by gambler »

avivo wrote: post #75
gambler wrote: post #28

"Cornell University is studying human susceptibility to digital disinformation generated by language models." "The Middlebury Institute of International Studies Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism (CTEC) is exploring how GPT-2 could be misused by terrorists and extremists online." "The University of Oregon is developing a series of “bias probes” to analyze bias within GPT-2." But apparently no univer…

I'm not sure if this captures this full set of tensions at play. I'm a huge fan of Doug Engelbart, and he was my inspiration for a long time...but it turns out augmentation of power without checks and balances can end up very messy (I'm also a fan of James Madison, though Engelbart is closer to a first love!). One could argue that I actually started work on misinformation though Engelbart. I was working on various pr…

You're just proving my point. If we go past the fashionable rhetoric about AI and apply the same reasoning to existing technologies, we could conclude that Photoshop was too dangerous to release to the public without "appropriate checks and balances". It can be used to create harmful memes and doctor photos! So what tools should an average person be allowed to use?

Also, with so many people concerned about disinformation, where is research on tools that would empower individual users to process information in better ways and make sounded judgements?

Re: GPT-2: 6-Month Follow-Up

#92

Post by brentsch »

mappingbabeljc wrote: post #68
brentsch wrote: post #13

I'm curious about the "fine-tuning based detection" mentioned in the report ("Fine-tunes a language model to 'detect itself'... over a range of available settings"). Does anyone know good articles/papers (or have an off-the-top tl;dr) to get a high-level grasp of "self-detection" for generative models?

Hiya, I work at OpenAI. I think the Grover paper is a good place to read about some of this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.12616 We're likely publishing more on detecting fine-tuned outputs in the future, also.

Many thanks! Looking forward to reading the OpenAI research when it comes out as well.

Re: GPT-2: 6-Month Follow-Up

#93

Post by inimino »

The_rationalist wrote: post #82
inimino wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of the time it seems trivial to beat the old state of the art, just use BERT or XLnet on a task where nobody applied it before If it was a high-return fruit somebody would be doing it. Not necessarily publishing papers about it or trying to beat useless artificial benchmarks on it.

If it was a high-return fruit somebody would be doing it." Not necessarily. Not necessarily publishing papers about it Yes. trying to beat useless artificial benchmarks on it. Wtf is this bullshit? AI benchmarcks are what direct progress in AI and allow to quantify it. And they are less and less artificial and more and more real world: E.g quora, reddit, Wikipedia and Facebook datasets.

>"If it was a high-return fruit somebody would be doing it." Not necessarily. With high likelihood given current funding of ML with $$$ applications but yes, not necessarily.

> AI benchmarcks are what direct progress in AI

Sadly this is largely true.

The AI benchmarks + culture around it are the bullshit.

What actually moves forward the field of AI is:

- accessible

- reproducible

- comprehensible

results done with some thought and reasoning which is explained well, published well, and justified by more than some #$!& "our F1 score went up by 2 therefore our approach makes sense" bullshit.

AI benchmarks have done as much to retard progress in AI as they have to promote it.

Current AI benchmark top scores are gamification for big companies to waste even more resources running algorithms they can't explain. They are not machine learning, they are machine pissing contests.

Re: GPT-2: 6-Month Follow-Up

#94

Post by inimino »

comradesmith wrote: post #47
gambler wrote: post #28

"Cornell University is studying human susceptibility to digital disinformation generated by language models." "The Middlebury Institute of International Studies Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism (CTEC) is exploring how GPT-2 could be misused by terrorists and extremists online." "The University of Oregon is developing a series of “bias probes” to analyze bias within GPT-2." But apparently no univer…

http://talktotransformer.com Seems accessible to me

"Accessible" means more than "there's a web service available somewhere that's running some version of it".

Re: GPT-2: 6-Month Follow-Up

#95

Post by jcims »

AdamDKing wrote: post #56
minimaxir wrote: post #2

For finetuning GPT-2 on custom text, my gpt-2-simple package ( https://github.com/minimaxir/gpt-2-simple ) gets close to going OOM when finetuning the 345M model, even on a 16GB VRAM server GPU. Doubling the size of the model with the 774M model might cause it to not work at all, so I’ll need to test. Of course, the default output from the model might be sufficient, although it’ll take twice as long to generate text…

>How exactly the large GPT-2 models are deployed is a mystery I really wish was open-sourced more. TalkToTransformer.com uses preemptible P4 GPUs on Google Kubernetes Engine. Changing the number of workers and automatically restarting them when they're preempted is easy with Kubernetes. To provide outputs incrementally rather than waiting for the entire sequence to be generated, I open a websocket to a a worker and h…

Any thoughts on the larger model? Doesn't seem materially better than the last one. Maybe the fine tuning exercises will show the benefit?

Re: GPT-2: 6-Month Follow-Up

#96

Post by 40four »

newhaus1994 wrote: post #88
40four wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think their point isn't that terrorists leveraging this tech not a problem. It is certainly a problem. But the greater problem being a few large entities being the only ones who have access to or control over it. I think it's pretty clear that terrorists or any other bad actor will find great value & utility in this tech. The article from OpenAI says 'Humans can be convinced by synthetic text.' & research at Cornel…

In spite of all that we're studying wrt abuse potential, I (and my team) generally support open-sourcing tech, and I hope that we can contribute not to "oh this is dangerous, don't release" but rather to "oh this is dangerous, it's already released, what are we going to do now?"

Great, keep up the good work! Are you able to discuss how studies like yours work? Is it along the lines of determining if people can distinguish between human written and AI generated text? Sounds like a difficult question to answer.

I suspect they will release the full model in time. It's already trending in that direction.

Re: GPT-2: 6-Month Follow-Up

#97

Post by gambler »

skybrian wrote: post #87
insulanus wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are correct that nothing is taken away from an author when someone reads their Wikipedia article. Perhaps what the poster above you is saying is that there is a continuum of information, some more personal and sensitive, like your current location, and some less personal, like the Wikipedia article on Elephants. Taking data about specific humans, (or humans in general), and turning it into code that has p…

It doesn't cost you anything when someone uses your Reddit posts to train a model either. The supposed harm is very tenuous.

Look up some semi-recent talks on social media by Jaron Lanier.

Re: GPT-2: 6-Month Follow-Up

#98

Post by make3 »

The_rationalist wrote: post #36
make3 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BERT and its descendants do better at all of this, and are the industry standard now https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

Except that BERT is now obscoleted by https://github.com/zihangdai/xlnet (but xlnet would never have existed without BERT)

then Facebook's roberta came out which beat xlnet and is essentially a more intelligently trained. I included XLNet as being a bc descendant of BERT, but I guess they are all descendants of GPT1
Post reply on HN