21–30 of 211 posts
Say I'm a conspiracy theorist but I'm calling it, that the pentagon isn't letting OpenAI tell the details of GPT-4 even if they wanted to (which they don't except for some of the researchers probably). National security, export restrictions, munitions classification, new Manhattan project etc. EDIT: I know that most people think it's unlikely and I can't give any direct evidence for it. Does that mean it's not welcom…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
God bless these saviors for prioritizing our "safety!"
Is this the new "think of the children"?
For now its AI companies, with people, protecting us from powerful tech.
Soon it will just be the AI's protecting us from powerful tech.
Am I joking? Maybe? Maybe, not? I don't know! Everything around this new tech is moving too fast, and been too unpredictable.
And here I am, writing this manually, every word is mine, on a computer that I can't talk to yet. That already feels so 2022.
Only one thing is certain. Siri is now to Apple, what Clippy was to Microsoft, on a far far planet, long long ago.
Say I'm a conspiracy theorist but I'm calling it, that the pentagon isn't letting OpenAI tell the details of GPT-4 even if they wanted to (which they don't except for some of the researchers probably). National security, export restrictions, munitions classification, new Manhattan project etc. EDIT: I know that most people think it's unlikely and I can't give any direct evidence for it. Does that mean it's not welcom…
Just say what's on your mind and don't mind the votes. One thing you'll discover is that you're not alone in your views, whatever they are. Few days ago I came across this bone chilling AI generated Metal Gear Solid 2 meme with Hideo Kojima characters talking about how the purpose of this technology is to make it impossible to tell what's real or fake, leading directly to regulation of information networks with ident…
Say I'm a conspiracy theorist but I'm calling it, that the pentagon isn't letting OpenAI tell the details of GPT-4 even if they wanted to (which they don't except for some of the researchers probably). National security, export restrictions, munitions classification, new Manhattan project etc. EDIT: I know that most people think it's unlikely and I can't give any direct evidence for it. Does that mean it's not welcom…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can oppose literally every technology by saying "oh it'll use energy - won't someone think of climate change?" The copy+paste of "CO2 emissions" and "energy" has been one of the most successful petroleum company propaganda coups in history.
The article says trading Gpt4 cost 284 tons of CO2, which is, in the scheme of things, quite small. Yearly emissions for a person in the US is ~16 tons, so /training/ the giant model is equivalent to the emissions of less than twenty people in a country of 400 million. Sure, every bit counts, but this is laughable as a criticism.
Saves in the sense that humans no longer have to do the work, GPT-4 can just spit it out in seconds so no need for lights, computers to run, food to be produced for the human to eat, etc.
A large part of the magic in the final product appears to be many intermediate layers of classification that select the appropriate LLM/method to query. The cheaper models (e.g. Ada/Babbage) could be used for this purpose. Think about why offensive ChatGPT prompts are rejected so quickly compared to legitimate asks for code.
Imagine the architectural advantage of a big switch statement over models trained in different domains or initial vectors. Cross-domain queries could be managed mostly across turns of conversation w/ summarization. Think about the Stanford Alpaca parse analysis diagram [0]. You could have an instruction-following model per initial keyword. All of "Write..." might fit into a much smaller model if isolated. This stuff could be partitioned in ways that turn out to be mildly intuitive to a layman.
Retraining 7B parameters vs 175B is a big delta. The economics of this must have forced a more modular architecture at scale. Consider why ChatGPT is so cheap. Surely, they figured out a way to break down one big box into smaller ones.
[0]: https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca/blob/main/assets/parse_analysis.pngEarlier quoted context omitted.
It's far more likely that openai have just been building hype by showing off the earlier models, and now they're shutting things down so they can monetize their IP.
> It's far more likely Would be interested to see your math and assumptions behind this conclusion. There’s no way that their plans to monetize this don’t include the defense/natsec industry
Sorry but where's your maths for this?
Say I'm a conspiracy theorist but I'm calling it, that the pentagon isn't letting OpenAI tell the details of GPT-4 even if they wanted to (which they don't except for some of the researchers probably). National security, export restrictions, munitions classification, new Manhattan project etc. EDIT: I know that most people think it's unlikely and I can't give any direct evidence for it. Does that mean it's not welcom…
Virgil Griffith is in jail for discussing how Bitcoin works at a high level at an academic conference... So you are quite grounded in rationality.
> Griffith was arrested in 2019, and in 2021 pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate U.S. laws relating to money laundering using cryptocurrency and sanctions related to North Korea.[5] On April 12, 2022, Griffith was sentenced to 63 months imprisonment for assisting North Korea with evading sanctions and is currently in a federal low-security prison in Pennsylvania
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s amazing how one can found a nonprofit with a goal of conducting “open” research and then end up publishing something like this a couple of years later. Greed is good I guess.
We're not publishing any details on the models for safety reasons! Also would be great if the government cracked down on our competitors because they don't care about safety like we do.