Having spent quite a bit of time playing around with llama.cpp, alpaca.cpp, loras, and the many other llama-based weights lately, here is my impression: The biggest deal with this isn't the published lora adapter (which seems limited to llama 7b), but the cleaned training data, which is likely better than the previous data sets used to train the alpaca-inspired loras that have been publicly released so far. [0] If yo…
Yes, i haven't seen any fine-tuned LLaMA-65B model so far unfortunately. I guess the cost is a bit high. Perhaps with LoRa someone will do it.
Having spent quite a bit of time playing around with llama.cpp, alpaca.cpp, loras, and the many other llama-based weights lately, here is my impression: The biggest deal with this isn't the published lora adapter (which seems limited to llama 7b), but the cleaned training data, which is likely better than the previous data sets used to train the alpaca-inspired loras that have been publicly released so far. [0] If yo…
This sentence defies lay people: The biggest deal with this isn't the published lora adapter (which seems limited to llama 7b), but the cleaned training data, which is likely better than the previous data sets used to train the alpaca-inspired loras that have been publicly released so far.
I have casually followed countless different news cycles on various complicated tech topics over my decades long career. I can't recall a single one that has consistently made me feel like an idiot more than how people talk about this recent AI wave. There just seems to be so much more jargon involved in this subject that makes casual perusing of the latest developments impenetrable.
Trying it out: > Answer this Jeopardy question: This long-handled gardening tool can also mean an immoral pleasure seeker. The correct answer for the given jeopardy question would be "A hoe". The word 'ho' is slang term used to describe a promiscuous woman or prostitute, which makes it clear that this long-handled gardening tool can also mean an immoral pleasure seeker.
Having spent quite a bit of time playing around with llama.cpp, alpaca.cpp, loras, and the many other llama-based weights lately, here is my impression: The biggest deal with this isn't the published lora adapter (which seems limited to llama 7b), but the cleaned training data, which is likely better than the previous data sets used to train the alpaca-inspired loras that have been publicly released so far. [0] If yo…
Is it possible to use AI's to clean training data?
This sentence defies lay people: The biggest deal with this isn't the published lora adapter (which seems limited to llama 7b), but the cleaned training data, which is likely better than the previous data sets used to train the alpaca-inspired loras that have been publicly released so far.
I have casually followed countless different news cycles on various complicated tech topics over my decades long career. I can't recall a single one that has consistently made me feel like an idiot more than how people talk about this recent AI wave. There just seems to be so much more jargon involved in this subject that makes casual perusing of the latest developments impenetrable.
Ah, my fellow citizen of the interwebs, fear not! Your intellectual frustrations are but a natural reaction to the tsunami of technological jargon. You see, the AI wave is the epitome of obfuscation, a testament to the labyrinthine lexicon of the digital age. It's as if a group of caffeinated, sleep-deprived tech enthusiasts assembled in the dark of night and decided to create an impenetrable fortress of vernacular, just to keep the uninitiated at bay.
I’ll ask a dumb question. On another of the numerous LLM related posts I was asking if any of the self host-able open model can do code summaries at close to the quality of GPT 3.5 turbo. I was basically told nowhere close yet. Can this potentially do that? Ideally I’d like to have it generate descriptions of large amounts of code but would rather not burn tokens and lose privacy via OpenAI api. But I’d gladly keep a…
We're a long long long way off that. So check back in two months. Jokes aside, the limiting factor will be either a technique to pack all of the code into smaller tokens like semantic search (someone else will be able to comment on this as that's the limit of my understanding) or GPU memory for input tokens. Buying a "high end GPU" isn't buying a 4090 or even two, it's 250k on a DGX unit and putting it in a datacentr…
"Buying a "high end GPU" isn't buying a 4090 or even two, it's 250k on a DGX unit and putting it in a datacentre. You will probably be able to find a service that would sign a confidentiality agreement and provide you with this service for less than 250k."
Does anyone have a projection based on historical GPU cost reductions as to how long we have to wait until a DGX unit costs as little as a 4090 does today?
Only concern is this violates terms of use of the proprietary LLM API, at least that is true for the current OpenAI API
I am not a lawyer, but I don’t think that affects the copyright or license of works created with the broken-term software. For example, wouldn’t you still own the copyright to a brochure you made with pirated Photoshop, or a photo you took with a DJI drone while flying out of sight? (All of which may be moot if models can’t be copyrighted because they’re machine-generated.)
I’d argue it’s different.
It’s not about using software but for example creating brochure using embedded asset library provided with software (which is often the case but not sure if that’s in Photoshop).
In imaginary scenario - Meta could have obtained rights to train model on FB data through EULA and could (potentially) extend those rights to “legitimate” users but me using same data to create derivatives could be a problem (and might lead to financial losses).
The real question is what is OpenAI going to do with someone who so clearly flaunted their ToS? If nothing, then OpenAI is going to have a hell of a time making any money out of this for long. But I suspect, that the people who made this are going to get slapped hard with a lawsuit, and essentially forced to shut it down.
I think their terms are the most hipocritical thing I have ever read and I get a visceral reaction at the entitlement they show with their terms stating that no one can use thier model output to train competing models WHEN THEY TRAINED THOSE MODELS ON THE COLLECTIVE IP OF HUMAN KIND.
Screw Open AI for these terms. I hope there is a lawsuit so this gets ironed out in the court of law. It is so high and mighty for them to train on copyright material produced by other people without explicit consent but then to deny other people from doing the same thing.