Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likely making this up.
Why did it not make up GPT-5 or something else, though?
Try asking it several times with slightly different phrasings.
The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600
141–150 of 173 posts
Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spam has existed on the internet for a long time.
This is different. It can act just like humans do for most people who skim comments won't be able to tell the difference. Note this was in 2020: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/08/1009845/a-gpt-3-... And here's 4chan bot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efPrtcLdcdM I can tell you that HN is probably already being infiltrated as well. SPAM can't gang up on you in a forum and downvote you and turn your friends…
How good are these bots against CAPTCHA?
Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my personal testing, I throw some sophisticated use cases at LLMs - particularly chain of thought reasoning. None of the models out there are able to do this this well, except for the OG GPT-3 Davinci-003. Even the newer turbo models are not as good. I am playing around with GPT-4 this week though. Let’s see how that goes.
The newer turbo models are the ChatGPT models, and are worse than text-davinci-003, in my experience. The gpt-4 model is also not as good as the GPT-4 chat version, which is very odd.
Yeah I think it lines up with Davinci being 10x as expensive as Turbo.
Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600
#144Alpaca is cool but it's also not technically allowed by OpenAI's TOS, and LLaMA is certainly not allowed to be used for non-commercial purposes. With that in mind, OpenAssistant is an Apache 2.0 licensed fully open source alternative that's pretty good (the model is OpenAssistant/oasst-sft-1-pythia-12b): https://huggingface.co/spaces/olivierdehaene/chat-llm-stream... . I've found OA to be better than Alpaca but I'll…
> Alpaca is cool but it's also not technically allowed by OpenAI's TOS, and LLaMA is certainly not allowed to be used for non-commercial purposes.
Only if you agreed to the ToS or believe that the weights are copyrightable (precedents set by the copyright office and the courts strongly suggest that they aren't). I personally see no issue in using these models for commercial purposes.
Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600
#145Alpaca is cool but it's also not technically allowed by OpenAI's TOS, and LLaMA is certainly not allowed to be used for non-commercial purposes. With that in mind, OpenAssistant is an Apache 2.0 licensed fully open source alternative that's pretty good (the model is OpenAssistant/oasst-sft-1-pythia-12b): https://huggingface.co/spaces/olivierdehaene/chat-llm-stream... . I've found OA to be better than Alpaca but I'll…
> Alpaca is cool but it's also not technically allowed by OpenAI's TOS, and LLaMA is certainly not allowed to be used for non-commercial purposes. Only if you agreed to the ToS or believe that the weights are copyrightable (precedents set by the copyright office and the courts strongly suggest that they aren't). I personally see no issue in using these models for commercial purposes.
You might not but a company will think twice. It's the same reason why companies could theoretically use pirated Windows and Adobe products and get away with it, but most don't because the risk is not worth the reward.
Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600
#146Hardly. 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…
You might need to fix your parameters. From the text-generation-gui guide: > For a more creative chat, use: temp 0.72, rep pen 1.1, top_k 0, and top_p 0.73 > For a more precise chat, use temp 0.7, repetition_penalty 1.1764705882352942 (1/0.85), top_k 40, and top_p 0.1 https://old.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/11o6o3f/how_to_... https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/11vsvro/in_cas... https://twitter.com/the…
I've tried all sorts of parameters including those exact ones. As for the huggingface stuff, it's not exactly clear how to use it without going down the python dependency rabbit hole. I am not confident I could get the correct python packages all together on Debian 11 to support running it. The llama.cpp stuff is very simple to compile and run comparatively.
Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600
#147> It seems these godlike AIs are already frighteningly cheap and easy to replicate. "godlike"? Really? I'm not religious, but this seems like an overreaction for something that has no agency.
How do you know agency is not simply the output of a large language model encoded in neurons? What is the difference between neuronal and digital weights? Considering that we don’t know how the brain works so well, and we don’t understand why LLMs work so well, simply on the basis of their output I think the safest assumption is that these models do indeed have agency, or at least the capability of agency.
I'm using agency in this context to mean: (1) a strong desire to achieve one or more clear goals, beyond survival, and (2) taking concrete steps to achieve those goals.
> How do you know agency is not simply the output of a large language model encoded in neurons?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Is agency an emergent effect of large digital or biological neural network? Maybe! Is it an emergent effect of a large language model? If it is, then it should be clear, or demonstrable, that the model (1) has goals (2) takes concrete steps to achieve those goals.
> What is the difference between neuronal and digital weights?
Brain chemistry works at orders of magnitude less speed, since we're talking about periodically building and releasing an ionic differential between the inside and outside of a cell wall. Moreover, we have a massive number of neurons and a stupidly massive amount of interneuronal connections, with billions of years of training over billions of lineages. Digital weights, in contrast, are a stripped down model of this system that throws out a whole class of complexities like hormones and metabolism.
> I think the safest assumption is that these models do indeed have agency, or at least the capability of agency.
I think this is an overly generous assumption.
Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600
#148> It seems these godlike AIs are already frighteningly cheap and easy to replicate. "godlike"? Really? I'm not religious, but this seems like an overreaction for something that has no agency.
What if creation was a result of a lucky happen-by-chance hallucination ?
Sure! Why not? Quantum foam imagining quantum foam. I love it. I still wouldn't consider an LLM god-like. I mean, if it eats its own son, then maybe. (Titan of a reference there.)
Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know agency is not simply the output of a large language model encoded in neurons? What is the difference between neuronal and digital weights? Considering that we don’t know how the brain works so well, and we don’t understand why LLMs work so well, simply on the basis of their output I think the safest assumption is that these models do indeed have agency, or at least the capability of agency.
I'm using agency in this context to mean: (1) a strong desire to achieve one or more clear goals, beyond survival, and (2) taking concrete steps to achieve those goals. > How do you know agency is not simply the output of a large language model encoded in neurons? I'm not sure what you mean here. Is agency an emergent effect of large digital or biological neural network? Maybe! Is it an emergent effect of a large lan…
I think the precautionary principle should apply to AI. Assuming and acting as if they have agency, is safer than assuming they don’t.
> it should be clear, or demonstrable, that the model (1) has goals (2) takes concrete steps to achieve those goals.
That definition seems arbitrary to me; many humans wouldn’t pass this test. On the other hand, LLMs certainly seem capable of acting towards specific goals (such as helpfulness). So, I would say that based on your definition, LLMs have agency. But I think you really meant, internally generated goals. Time will tell.
That said, humans who don’t have clear goals can and are coerced into all sorts of damaging behaviours by those who do have goals. So even if I accept that LLMs don’t have their own goals, they can certainly be manipulated to act in favour of the goals of others. That’s effectively what prompt engineering is all about.
So I just think it’s a mistake to make assumptions about these LLMs. We don’t know why they work so well, and it will take a very long time until we do.
In the meantime, let’s not make assumptions that we can’t justify.
Re: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm using agency in this context to mean: (1) a strong desire to achieve one or more clear goals, beyond survival, and (2) taking concrete steps to achieve those goals. > How do you know agency is not simply the output of a large language model encoded in neurons? I'm not sure what you mean here. Is agency an emergent effect of large digital or biological neural network? Maybe! Is it an emergent effect of a large lan…
I think the precautionary principle should apply to AI. Assuming and acting as if they have agency, is safer than assuming they don’t. > it should be clear, or demonstrable, that the model (1) has goals (2) takes concrete steps to achieve those goals. That definition seems arbitrary to me; many humans wouldn’t pass this test. On the other hand, LLMs certainly seem capable of acting towards specific goals (such as hel…
> That definition seems arbitrary to me; many humans wouldn’t pass this test.
What part of this is arbitrary, i.e. random, whimsical, or biased? This is a fairly comprehensive working definition of "agency". "Internally generated", which is implied, is a nice touch.
Nearly every human over the age of 18 months passes this test with flying colors. Toddlers have goals, and do everything in their power to achieve them. What humans are you thinking of that don't have agency?
> In the meantime, let’s not make assumptions that we can’t justify.
I totally agree. I think that until demonstrated otherwise, I will assume that LLMs are a giant statistical sieves that (1) periodically spit out text directly from their training set, unmodified, and that (2) do not learn on their own, do not formulate their own goals, and do not take actions to achieve those goals.