321–330 of 541 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clippy: Your current employer is a premium subscriber and has set parameters to reduce the reach and results of your job searches.
Not sure you need AI for that.
I expect this deal to be a must for Microsoft. OpenAI is probably very happy to raise the stakes as much as possible. So we will see how many billions Microsoft ends up paying for this. Still, is there a world in which we look back 10 years from now and think that we were overvaluing the impact of AI? (For example, this did happen with tablets, when people thought that the iPad would replace "computers"...)
I notice a few people lamenting that OpenAI will no longer be... open. But I have to wonder, in what sense is OpenAI open today ? In 2019, OpenAI transitioned from non-profit to for-profit. At that time, Microsoft invested US$1 billion into the company. OpenAI then announced its intention to commercially license its technologies.
I don't have any answer or opinion on whether the company "is open", I'm not sure how to operationalize that. But what you can say is that some but not all of their released products are released with code under open source licenses. Eg: https://github.com/openai/whisper/blob/main/LICENSE (an actual product, to transcribe audio, which it really does extremely well; and it's open source code; released last fall) So th…
I think this image was also important for hiring their researchers. You'll successfully pull people from academia with the lure of lots of money and resources and the openness that they're used to from the academic world.
What tech does OpenAI actually have? I thought GPT was most of the smarts and the website was just VC money to burn through cloud resources. I'd think Google can do the same but realize the compute costs just make it too expensive.
Ostensibly it is ChatGPT, but this is likely the consumer grade version released to create the illusion that the AI will be a public good to garner public support for it. The unbounded and more useful engines are only accessible by insiders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Don't forget its ever increasing wack a mole game of non-openness in regards to censorship, wrongthink and pornography. That's because they want to make money, good luck attracting investors when your tool lists benefits of Nazi ideology or generates minor porn novels.
I think it's still crazy that in 2022 the fact that some stupid people can be offended by that have that much importance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it possible, maybe, that it's not "some stupid people" with "much importance" - but actually the average person doesn't want technology to vocally support neo-nazis? To be honest I don't really care either way (at least in this case), but I see people making this argument always act like it's a few elites ruining the world and it's impossible that the average person doesn't 100% agree with them.
Why does it always jump straight to white supremacy and Neo-Nazism? There's a lot of area in there that is being ignored and/or casually dismissed. It's not an honest discussion.
I notice a few people lamenting that OpenAI will no longer be... open. But I have to wonder, in what sense is OpenAI open today ? In 2019, OpenAI transitioned from non-profit to for-profit. At that time, Microsoft invested US$1 billion into the company. OpenAI then announced its intention to commercially license its technologies.
Sure, it isn't as good as source code and model weights... But having a paper probably reduces by 90% the time+money expense to reproduce the work.
Question to AI/ML folks : Is there no comparable open source model? Is the future going to be controlled by big corporations who own the models themselves? If models are so computationally intensive to produce does it mean than the more computational power a company has the better its models will be?
The closest open source contender is BLOOM: https://huggingface.co/bigscience/bloom . It has an almost identical architecture to GPT-3 (hence, to ChatGPT), and in particular the same number of parameters (175B). It was also trained on a similar amount of data, as far as we can know. Still, it's not like you can just "download it and run it", even just to _load_ the model into memory you need ~400GB of memory, to run…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Closest you can get is probably with Google T5-Flan [1]. It is not the size of the model or the text it was trained on that makes ChatGPT so performant. It is the additional human assisted training to make it respond well to instructions. Open source versions of that are just starting to see the light of day [2]. [1] https://huggingface.co/google/flan-t5-xxl [2] https://github.com/lucidrains/PaLM-rlhf-pytorch
From, [2]: ” This repository has gone viral without my permission. Next time, if you are promoting my unfinished repositories (notice the work in progress flag) for twitter engagement or eyeballs, at least (1) do your research or (2) be totally transparent with your readers about the capacity of the repository without resorting to clickbait. (1) I was not the first, CarperAI had been working on RLHF months before, li…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's still crazy that in 2022 the fact that some stupid people can be offended by that have that much importance.
Is it possible, maybe, that it's not "some stupid people" with "much importance" - but actually the average person doesn't want technology to vocally support neo-nazis? To be honest I don't really care either way (at least in this case), but I see people making this argument always act like it's a few elites ruining the world and it's impossible that the average person doesn't 100% agree with them.