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

Open source solution replicates ChatGPT training process

hpc-ai.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 158 posts

Re: Open source solution replicates ChatGPT training process

#41

Post by wincy »

jackblemming wrote: post #23
simonw wrote: post #19

"hitting 100 million monthly active users 2 months after its launch". I'm deeply suspicious of that number. It came from Similarweb, who track these things through analytics gathered from browser extensions. I trust this article more: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/03/technology/chatgpt-openai... "But two months after its debut, ChatGPT has more than 30 million users and gets roughly five million visits a day, two p…

Can someone tell me what the hell they use ChatGPT for? I tried it a few times and it always confidently gave me wrong results to basic things. What is this thing supposedly “disrupting”? Is it really just marketing cranking out metric tons of spam blogs?

It’s great for getting general outlines for software design documents and then “hang the meat” onto the outline.

Re: Open source solution replicates ChatGPT training process

#42

Post by JoshuaDavid »

jackblemming wrote: post #23
simonw wrote: post #19

"hitting 100 million monthly active users 2 months after its launch". I'm deeply suspicious of that number. It came from Similarweb, who track these things through analytics gathered from browser extensions. I trust this article more: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/03/technology/chatgpt-openai... "But two months after its debut, ChatGPT has more than 30 million users and gets roughly five million visits a day, two p…

Can someone tell me what the hell they use ChatGPT for? I tried it a few times and it always confidently gave me wrong results to basic things. What is this thing supposedly “disrupting”? Is it really just marketing cranking out metric tons of spam blogs?

I sometimes ask it "what is the standard term of art in industry which means blah?" If you google that question, you get only blogspam and people trying to sell you something, but if you ask chatgpt and then google the thing it tells you is the standard language, it's pretty easy to tell if it gave you correct info.

And then you can run searches using the standard terms, which gives better results, and also when writing code have more- informatively-named variables and better-structured data.

Re: Open source solution replicates ChatGPT training process

#43

Post by rnosov »

simonw wrote: post #17

Is the term "ChatGPT" being used in place of GPT-3 here? Is this thing actually replicating the GPT-3 training process? The thing that makes ChatGPT interesting (over regular GPT-3) is the RLHF process, but this article doesn't seem to touch on that at all, unless I've missed something.

Surprisingly, they are using the term correctly. Although it seems that the main point of the post was to plug their "Colossal AI" framework but if you do an in-page search for "Low-cost replication of ChatGPT" subheading midway in the article they do claim to replicate RLHF thingy fully whatever it might be. Interestingly, they also suggest that it would work with both BLOOM and OPT meaning that you can potentially make things like ChatBLOOM and ChatOPT (even on a consumer grade GPU). Lack of demo doesn't inspire too much confidence though.

Re: Open source solution replicates ChatGPT training process

#44

Post by logicallee »

jackblemming wrote: post #23
simonw wrote: post #19

"hitting 100 million monthly active users 2 months after its launch". I'm deeply suspicious of that number. It came from Similarweb, who track these things through analytics gathered from browser extensions. I trust this article more: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/03/technology/chatgpt-openai... "But two months after its debut, ChatGPT has more than 30 million users and gets roughly five million visits a day, two p…

Can someone tell me what the hell they use ChatGPT for? I tried it a few times and it always confidently gave me wrong results to basic things. What is this thing supposedly “disrupting”? Is it really just marketing cranking out metric tons of spam blogs?

>Can someone tell me what the hell they use ChatGPT for?

Although it's free, I pay $20 for pro version ($240 per year) plus taxes, and use it daily. I get a lot of benefits from using it.

I use it to learn about things, solve problems, suggest approaches, critique my own proposals and approaches, generate code scaffolding and smaller code solutions, help me draft emails of all kinds, etc. I find it highly useful in a variety of contexts. You can give it obfuscated impossible code and it can analyze it and tell you what it does in seconds: https://imgur.com/a/m40TR4d (someone else's result)

It can help you find bugs and mistakes in your own code.

You can also ask it to tell you about a subject and it can give you a summary. Just tell it what you want and it'll do its best.

What areas did you use it where you got wrong results for basic things, to the point where you don't find it useful? Its major limitations are around logical numeracy (it gets numbers wrong) and lack of a visual cortex, which means you can't use it for graphics code or to write you visually correct solutions. Also, it doesn't speak foreign languages perfectly, it makes some grammatical mistakes.

I asked chatgpt about what people use it for and it gave these answers: https://imgur.com/a/qzUF5Ya

It mentions that it can generate a hypothesis. So a scientist can absolutely use it to make some suggestions, for example try "Generate five hypotheses a chemist might test as part of an undergraduate study program" - here are some examples: https://imgur.com/a/hOtGgKN

I'm no chemist, but those seem fine for me as undergraduate lab work tests. It's probably not going to get you a Ph.D. but often you don't need one, just a few quick brainstorming suggestions.

Some people have it plan all their meals and create recipes for them, which they then cook and eat. There are thousands of recipe sites, the reason people use ChatGPT is because they can just describe what they want, what they have, and have it come up with its own recipes based on what is available and can be purchased.

Just describe what you need and what you want it to do and it does a good job for you on all sorts of tasks.

Re: Open source solution replicates ChatGPT training process

#45

Post by krisoft »

jackblemming wrote: post #23
simonw wrote: post #19

"hitting 100 million monthly active users 2 months after its launch". I'm deeply suspicious of that number. It came from Similarweb, who track these things through analytics gathered from browser extensions. I trust this article more: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/03/technology/chatgpt-openai... "But two months after its debut, ChatGPT has more than 30 million users and gets roughly five million visits a day, two p…

Can someone tell me what the hell they use ChatGPT for? I tried it a few times and it always confidently gave me wrong results to basic things. What is this thing supposedly “disrupting”? Is it really just marketing cranking out metric tons of spam blogs?

> Can someone tell me what the hell they use ChatGPT for?

I play DnD with my friends and I’m usually the dungeon master. I use ChatGPT to help me world build, and flesh out details.

Don’t imagine asking ChatGPT what should happen in the next session. More like asking for options for the name and title of a non-player character. Then it writes options, I twist them up, combine them and select the one I like the best.

I can even ask more complicated questions like “what was so and so’s first innovation and how did it help their village? Provide 5 options” and then chatgpt goes and does that. Maybe I like one, and then that is canon from then on, or maybe while I am reading them I get an even better idea.

Basically I use it as a bicycle for my creativity. And in that use case I care 0% if what it says is true, much more that it comes up with wild things. It also doesn’t have to be totally consistent, since what it outputs is just a first step in an editing process.

For example I did know that one of the main cities in my world have grown from a sleepy village into a bustling university town because two wizzards started a friendly competition between them. And then with the help of ChatGPT I have iteratively expanded that core idea into this backstory of the city: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19dea6p9WuLcZIRVX2ecYMw8W...

Re: Open source solution replicates ChatGPT training process

#46

Post by faizshah »

simonw wrote: post #17

Is the term "ChatGPT" being used in place of GPT-3 here? Is this thing actually replicating the GPT-3 training process? The thing that makes ChatGPT interesting (over regular GPT-3) is the RLHF process, but this article doesn't seem to touch on that at all, unless I've missed something.

The article talks about their RLHF implementation briefly. There’s details on their RLHF implementation here: https://github.com/hpcaitech/ColossalAI/blob/a619a190df71ea3...

Re: Open source solution replicates ChatGPT training process

#48

Post by mrtranscendence »

dmw_ng wrote: post #36
jackblemming wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone tell me what the hell they use ChatGPT for? I tried it a few times and it always confidently gave me wrong results to basic things. What is this thing supposedly “disrupting”? Is it really just marketing cranking out metric tons of spam blogs?

I have been using it as a search replacement for most of the past month and only found two subtly wrong answers. This covers legal questions, researching product differences, wiring diagrams, suggesting books to read, correcting misremembered quotes, and about a hundred other tasks. Of course still relying on google in the background, but increasingly rarely, and presuming all the negative commentary we've been seein…

I don't know what you've been searching for that you've only found two subtly wrong answers. It frequently gives me incorrect answers, some of which are subtle and some of which are obvious. It's given me incorrect code, told me about incorrect APIs, explained deep learning concepts incorrectly, given me wrong answers about science-related questions, made up characters wholesale when I asked it about Irish mythology, given me made-up facts about (admittedly niche) philosophers.

I'm glad you've found use out of it, but I can't imagine using it as a search replacement for my use cases.

Edit: And I don't see why it would be surprising that ChatGPT wouldn't have all of the answers. The underlying model is much, much smaller than it would take to encode all of the knowledge it was trained on. It's going to make things up a lot of the time (since it's not good at remaining silent).

Re: Open source solution replicates ChatGPT training process

#49

Post by dsco »

jackblemming wrote: post #23
simonw wrote: post #19

"hitting 100 million monthly active users 2 months after its launch". I'm deeply suspicious of that number. It came from Similarweb, who track these things through analytics gathered from browser extensions. I trust this article more: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/03/technology/chatgpt-openai... "But two months after its debut, ChatGPT has more than 30 million users and gets roughly five million visits a day, two p…

Can someone tell me what the hell they use ChatGPT for? I tried it a few times and it always confidently gave me wrong results to basic things. What is this thing supposedly “disrupting”? Is it really just marketing cranking out metric tons of spam blogs?

I use it to generate and troubleshoot SQL queries. I work as a PM so the queries can be ineffective in terms of performance and scale as I just need the results.

Re: Open source solution replicates ChatGPT training process

#50

Post by [deleted] »

EGreg wrote: post #30
visarga wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're going to need AI to sift through all the BS. Yes, that's the only way to deal with it. Humans alone can't cope.

Somehow bombs don’t actually prevent other bombs. People always hope that the offensive tech could be used defensively, but defense is never perfect and even a few that get through can wreak destruction.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN