Live data from Hacker News

The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600

newatlas.com

41–50 of 173 posts

Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600

#41
post #8

Hardly. I've played a lot with the 7,13, and 30B llamas as well as the 7 and 13B alpacas fine tuned by Stanford. They do not have emergent abilities like being able to generate rhymes or, say, represent a movie plot as emoji. Even openai's old text-davinci-003 (gpt3.5, but text completion, not the chat ones) far outperforms them. That said, I have hopes for a 65B 3-bit quantized alpaca-fine tuned. We'll see when some…

For me the easiest comparison between models is to give it an absurd but entirely possible request, like "Write me a fanfic where the Animorphs battle the truck from Duel, but in the style of Mark Twain". So far nothing else I've tried has done even as well as GPT 3.5 yet, let alone GPT 4.

> Write me a fanfic where the Animorphs battle the truck from Duel, but in the style of Mark Twain

Whoa. I want to read this! Duel - what a great film. Twain - amazing writer. Animorphs - published after my teen years but sounds like a great story!

Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600

#42
post #13

This is why it's not possible to slow down or "stop" AI: once the problems are solved the solutions turn out to be trivial to replicate. All it takes is compute.

you say all it takes compute like that is trivial - chatGPT would have a hard time without Microsoft's support via Azure

Maybe. Certainly in the past, before the world was aware LLMs on the level of ChatGPT were possible with today's technology. OpenAI's chosen not to release any real details about GPT-4, so we don't actually know what it would take to train a model of equivalent quality, especially considering training isn't a one-shot. Multiple training runs easily add up training costs. So training for a 12-figure parameter size model(s) (175B) is assumed to be very expensive. But there has been great progress made for optimized models which are smaller by a two orders of magnitude - 7B for a debatable drop in quality (7B alpaca is in no-way competitive with ChatGPT, but it's still very much not a markov chain from during the AI winter). So one possibility is that OpenAI chose not to release salient GPT-4 details is due to it being much smaller than GPT-3's 175B model size and they're hiding the details because of how much that cuts down on training costs. (Which I should note is unsubstantiated conjecture but not outside the realm of possibility.)

The other aspect is that fine-tuning an existing model is way cheaper than creating a competing model from scratch, so a company could offer CompetitorGPT/CompetitorCoPilot competitive with GPT-3.5, and offer fine-tuning of that model trained on the source code repository of the purchaser company's codebase, possibly on-prem or at least inside their AWS VPC/Azure/GCP equivalent.

The other thing to note is that OpenAI is hosting ChatGPT as a public resource available to anyone with an account, akin to Google being open to the public from day one (although that is without an account. Maybe Gmail is a better comparison). I can't say for certain, only OpenAI would know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that inference for ChatGPT is the vast majority of their costs (which is all but trivial). Any private internal-only instance of OpenChatGPT (using the unlicensed leaked LLaMA model or a legal copy or someone else's) could be paying (relatively) minuscule training costs, and way lower inference costs if it's internal-use only. Whether that cost can be borne by a small SaaS company's existing AWS budget is up in the air, which is to say ultimately that you're right - ChatGPT would be difficult without the support of Microsoft via a huge Azure grant, it's less obvious that a self hosted internal-only OpenChatGPT, not from OpenAI, would be possible by hobbyist self-hosters with a prosumer GPU cluster (Say with last generation K80's instead of business-priced A100's), or by a company wanting to leverage LLMs for private use by that company that wants to provide a Copilot like productivity multiplier internal tool to their developers, without sending private source code to OpenAI in lieu of a privacy agreement with them.

Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600

#43
post #8

Hardly. I've played a lot with the 7,13, and 30B llamas as well as the 7 and 13B alpacas fine tuned by Stanford. They do not have emergent abilities like being able to generate rhymes or, say, represent a movie plot as emoji. Even openai's old text-davinci-003 (gpt3.5, but text completion, not the chat ones) far outperforms them. That said, I have hopes for a 65B 3-bit quantized alpaca-fine tuned. We'll see when some…

3 bits? Is that for all weights in the network?

It might have been a typo, as the current llama.cpp / alpaca.cpp included quantizers default to 4 bits.

Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600

#44

The incredible contribution of Alpaca is showing the world how to efficicently train LLM on instructions. The fact that it did so on 52k instructions generated by GPT is poetic. It does not matter what current capabilities of open source models are, because this opens the door to tremendous democratization of the ability to train and self-deploy these models. In less than 6 months we will have open source models with…

[deleted]

Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600

#45
> asked GPT to take 175 human-written instruction/output pairs, and start generating more in the same style and format ... through one of OpenAI's helpfully provided APIs, and ... the team had some 52,000 sample conversations to use in post-training the LLaMA model

hmm I wonder if this is essentially a probe[1] technique + relies on chatgpt already having been extensively trained

like did they basically exfiltrate the weights

1. probing per https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.12452

Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600

#46
post #31
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT API is surprisingly cheap, but GPT-4 is many times more expensive to the point where I can't see it being worth it most of the time.

I'm not convinced that the GPT-4 API actually works? It's been giving me very different answers than the chat interface. For example, the chat interface says it's GPT-4 if you ask it, but the API says it's GPT-3 (and bills as GPT-4).

Why would the LLM model know what version it actually is? It was trained on data from before that model version even existed.

Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600

#47
post #42
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you say all it takes compute like that is trivial - chatGPT would have a hard time without Microsoft's support via Azure

Maybe. Certainly in the past, before the world was aware LLMs on the level of ChatGPT were possible with today's technology. OpenAI's chosen not to release any real details about GPT-4, so we don't actually know what it would take to train a model of equivalent quality, especially considering training isn't a one-shot. Multiple training runs easily add up training costs. So training for a 12-figure parameter size mod…

I've been using the Chat GPT-4 model, and openAI has been putting warnings about max queries per N hours. Given the degree to which they're limiting access (up until they crashed today, they'd dropped to 25 queries / 3 hours), I suspect GPT-4 is actually much, much larger, and they just don't have the computational resources to support its use at the same level as GPT-3.5 or GPT-3.5 Turbo.

Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600

#48
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that's true, it's basically inevitable now that at some point personal hardware will be powerful enough for enthusiasts to run home bots comparable to GPT-3, and even that by itself would drastically change a lot things.

Running isn’t necessarily the issue. The moat is creating a high-quality model like OpenAI has, which (and here the article is mistaken) doesn’t seem to be easily reproducible.

While that's true, it also seems entirely predictable at this point how to do that. It takes a lot of effort and expensive hardware, but there isn't really a "secret sauce" beyond expertise in the field.

Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3 bits? Is that for all weights in the network?

As far as I know, yes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.17323 "Specifically, GPTQ can quantize GPT models with 175 billion parameters in approximately four GPU hours, reducing the bitwidth down to 3 or 4 bits per weight, with negligible accuracy degradation relative to the uncompressed baseline." This would be 175 billion 3 bit weights instead of 175 billion 16 (or 32!) bit weights. It massively reduces the size of the mod…

> https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.17323

I've read the paper and to be honest I'm not sure what to make of it. Their headline benchmark is perplexity on WikiText2 which would not be particularly relevant to most users. If you look at the tables in the appendix A.4 with some more relevant benchmarks you'll sometimes find that straight RTN 4 bit quantisation beats both GPTQ and even full 16 bit original! No explanation of it is given in the paper.

Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600

#50
I've used both the 7B and 13B instruction tuned llama weights (quantized using the llama.cpp scripts). Either I am doing something wrong, or these two models are no-where near the level of ChatGPT. Many times they return something totally irrelevant to my question, stop responding, use a different language, or otherwise return the wrong answer. ChatGPT does none of this. (other than the wrong answer due to hallucinating sometimes...)

Reading through the README and issues on the llama.cpp project, there is some speculation that there is a bug in the quantization, or possibly a bug in the inference (less likely I think).

I hope this is true and once fixed the models can perform up to or past the ChatGPT level. If its not true and these models are performing correctly, then either the metrics used to compare it to GPT is garbage and don't capture the real world uses, or the instruction tuning done by the Stanford team is not up to par.

Post reply on HN