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

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

newatlas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 173 posts

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

#161

Post by Zuiii »

satvikpendem wrote: post #145
Zuiii wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> It's the same reason why companies could theoretically use pirated Windows and Adobe products

Again, using and distributing LLaMA weights is not illegal in any way under current laws. End of story.

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

#162

Post by cjohnson318 »

doctor_eval wrote: post #159
cjohnson318 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

Got it. So you assume these systems are inherently safe. What could go wrong?

> What could go wrong?

Great question! These are predictive models that accept a text query, do some matrix math, and then return some text. At what point in that server-client relationship does this algorithm jump the rails and run amok?

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

#163

Post by [deleted] »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #162
doctor_eval wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got it. So you assume these systems are inherently safe. What could go wrong?

> What could go wrong? Great question! These are predictive models that accept a text query, do some matrix math, and then return some text. At what point in that server-client relationship does this algorithm jump the rails and run amok?

[deleted]

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

#164

Post by doctor_eval »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #162
doctor_eval wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got it. So you assume these systems are inherently safe. What could go wrong?

> What could go wrong? Great question! These are predictive models that accept a text query, do some matrix math, and then return some text. At what point in that server-client relationship does this algorithm jump the rails and run amok?

What about here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35239578

> A popular nightmare scenario for AI is giving it access to tools, so it can make API calls and execute its own code and generally break free of the constraints of its initial environment. Let's do that now!

I also think that you're assuming we know a lot more about how these things work than we actually do; you seem to think nobody is going to hook these up to APIs that can actually modify the world, despite the barrier to doing so being incredibly low; and you don't seem to have read about the adversarial training that people have been doing between the LLMs.

It's obvious that you think everything is all safe and nothing will go wrong, and I really hope you're right. But I think it's a very dangerous assumption.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

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

#165

Post by cjohnson318 »

doctor_eval wrote: post #164
cjohnson318 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What could go wrong? Great question! These are predictive models that accept a text query, do some matrix math, and then return some text. At what point in that server-client relationship does this algorithm jump the rails and run amok?

What about here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35239578 > A popular nightmare scenario for AI is giving it access to tools, so it can make API calls and execute its own code and generally break free of the constraints of its initial environment. Let's do that now! I also think that you're assuming we know a lot more about how these things work than we actually do; you seem to think nobody is going to hook thes…

You've moved the goalposts from, "we should assume that predictive text models are sentient," to, "we should be wary of programs explicitly designed to interact unpredictably with other computer systems," something that everyone from the Amish to the NSA to Cozy Bear would agree with.

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

#166

Post by satvikpendem »

Zuiii wrote: post #161
satvikpendem wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's the same reason why companies could theoretically use pirated Windows and Adobe products Again, using and distributing LLaMA weights is not illegal in any way under current laws. End of story.

Again, you missed the point. LLaMA is under a non commercial license. I never stated it is illegal, just that a company will not want to violate license terms even if it is legal, simply because getting sued in a civil case is still a risk they wouldn't be willing to take compared to the benefit.

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

#167

Post by Zuiii »

satvikpendem wrote: post #166
Zuiii wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the same reason why companies could theoretically use pirated Windows and Adobe products Again, using and distributing LLaMA weights is not illegal in any way under current laws. End of story.

Again, you missed the point. LLaMA is under a non commercial license. I never stated it is illegal, just that a company will not want to violate license terms even if it is legal, simply because getting sued in a civil case is still a risk they wouldn't be willing to take compared to the benefit.

But I'm not licensing LLaMA from facebook in the first place so their terms wouldn't apply.

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

#168

Post by satvikpendem »

Zuiii wrote: post #167
satvikpendem wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, you missed the point. LLaMA is under a non commercial license. I never stated it is illegal, just that a company will not want to violate license terms even if it is legal, simply because getting sued in a civil case is still a risk they wouldn't be willing to take compared to the benefit.

But I'm not licensing LLaMA from facebook in the first place so their terms wouldn't apply.

Of course they would apply, if you're using LLaMA at all. If you're using a different model that derives from LLaMA, depending on the license terms, the same license might also apply (similar to how GPL virality works). If you're using a wholly different model, then the model's license applies instead of LLaMA's.

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

#169

Post by doctor_eval »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #165
doctor_eval wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35239578 > A popular nightmare scenario for AI is giving it access to tools, so it can make API calls and execute its own code and generally break free of the constraints of its initial environment. Let's do that now! I also think that you're assuming we know a lot more about how these things work than we actually do; you seem to think nobody is going to hook thes…

You've moved the goalposts from, "we should assume that predictive text models are sentient," to, "we should be wary of programs explicitly designed to interact unpredictably with other computer systems," something that everyone from the Amish to the NSA to Cozy Bear would agree with.

What I said at the outset was,

> 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.

These systems can already interact with others, it’s not moving the goalposts, it’s common knowledge. Anyone with access to the APIs can make it happen. Or are you now claiming we are just talking about one specific LLM and not LLMs generally?

Anyway this discussion is fruitless, I’m out.

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

#170

Post by Zuiii »

satvikpendem wrote: post #168
Zuiii wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I'm not licensing LLaMA from facebook in the first place so their terms wouldn't apply.

Of course they would apply, if you're using LLaMA at all. If you're using a different model that derives from LLaMA, depending on the license terms, the same license might also apply (similar to how GPL virality works). If you're using a wholly different model, then the model's license applies instead of LLaMA's.

And I'm saying you're wrong, they don't and I'm willing to bet that the courts will agree :)
Post reply on HN