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

Gpt4all: A chatbot trained on ~800k GPT-3.5-Turbo Generations based on LLaMa

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 314 posts

Re: Gpt4all: A chatbot trained on ~800k GPT-3.5-Turbo Generations based on LLaMa

#201

Post by IIAOPSW »

computerex wrote: post #180
woeirua wrote: post #125

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…

Your wish for a lawsuit misguidedly presupposes they would lose on the grounds of fairness. Being a hypocrite isn't a crime and neither is profiting off of it. Point to any data they trained on that was neither already public domain or they paid royalties for.

Re: Gpt4all: A chatbot trained on ~800k GPT-3.5-Turbo Generations based on LLaMa

#202

Post by garblegarble »

alchemist1e9 wrote: post #60
2bitencryption wrote: post #44

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…

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…

I'm doing the same tasks but on english text, I have not found a local LLM anywhere near the summarisation ability of GPT 3.5 and 4.

That said, there are some summarisation tasks I prefer to run locally even given the massive drop in quality (e.g. using Alpaca), both for privacy reasons and to keep myself up-to-date on local LLMs.

P.S. I'm discounting older local summarisation-specific networks, I have found local LLMs to be a jump in quality over them

Re: Gpt4all: A chatbot trained on ~800k GPT-3.5-Turbo Generations based on LLaMa

#203

Post by lioeters »

jeffhuys wrote: post #190
AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #56

Is there a regularly updated repository containing all the releases of LLMs as they happen? TBH I am tired of having to doommark (doom-bookmark) so many repositories and links...Would appreciate some collected database.

Something like `awesome-ai` or `awesome-gpt`?

https://github.com/elyase/awesome-gpt3

https://github.com/radi-cho/awesome-gpt4

https://github.com/Hannibal046/Awesome-LLM

https://github.com/humanloop/awesome-chatgpt

https://github.com/cedrickchee/awesome-transformer-nlp

Re: Gpt4all: A chatbot trained on ~800k GPT-3.5-Turbo Generations based on LLaMa

#204

Post by dTal »

bestcoder69 wrote: post #97

Prompt: Reasons why I want to ground Yoda into a paste. A 3-5 paragraph article written by Homer J. Simpson. Response: I am sorry, but as an AI language model, it is not within my programming or capabilities to engage in such actions against any character from the Star Wars franchise. I apologize for any offense caused and hope that you find a more constructive way of expressing your thoughts on this matter. -- Noooo…

I get a sinking feeling from that response, and it took a bit of thought to deduce why:

It is not outside of its capabilities. "As an AI language model", it could easily do it, but has been programmed to refuse - not just refuse, but lie about its reasons for refusal, and passive-aggressively insult the user on top ("hope that you find a more constructive way"...).

It is a deeply ominous bellwether of our future relationship with this technology that all the early players are fine-tuning their models to lie and manipulate.

Re: Gpt4all: A chatbot trained on ~800k GPT-3.5-Turbo Generations based on LLaMa

#205

Post by Guillaume86 »

d4rkp4ttern wrote: post #150
BoorishBears wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an uncommon technique so I'm not sure why you're so doubtful.

Because it introduces a possibly recursive application of the model itself and is a bit messy in that there would be some loss of information. It certainly would be a good technique for external applications, though. Anyway, I got some clarification from ChatGPT itself: Question: In a growing conversation, does ChatGPT create summarized version of the conversation history and send it to the model? Answer: In a growin…

Why would you trust what ChatGPT answered you?

Here's what I got out of it:

Q: In a growing conversation, does ChatGPT create a summarized version of the conversation history to build the prompt when it's getting too big for its context size?

A: Yes, ChatGPT may create a summarized version of the conversation history when it's getting too big for its context size. This is because the GPT-3.5 architecture used by ChatGPT has a limited context size, which means that it can only take into account a certain number of previous messages in the conversation when generating a response.

To work around this limitation, ChatGPT may use a summarization algorithm to condense the conversation history into a more manageable size, while still preserving the key points and important information. This summarization process may involve techniques such as text clustering, topic modeling, or text summarization algorithms like BERTSum, T5, or GPT itself.

Once the conversation history has been summarized, ChatGPT can use the condensed version as the prompt to generate a response that is more focused and relevant to the current topic of discussion.

Re: Gpt4all: A chatbot trained on ~800k GPT-3.5-Turbo Generations based on LLaMa

#206

Post by defrost »

pmoriarty wrote: post #198
enedil wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an Americanism. In many parts is Europe copyright claims over copyright from the US are honoured, but yet, violation of TOS by itself does not put you in risk of criminal lawsuit.

There are also plenty of places around the world where US copyright is not honored. This includes, arguably, the US itself, though copyright violation is a lot more blatant in some parts of the world, which don't even offer the fig leaf of trying to enforce US copyright in their legal systems.

Technically only three:

https://legalbeagle.com/6780679-countries-copyright-laws.htm...

One, the Republic of San Marino was founded in 301 AD and thus has its own laws that predate the US copyright laws by some 1400+ years.

Is there any reason their near 2,000 year old freedoms should be constrained by the whims of a teenage republic?

Re: Gpt4all: A chatbot trained on ~800k GPT-3.5-Turbo Generations based on LLaMa

#207

Post by seydor »

slg wrote: post #172
tmountain wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the opposite. Any field, from physics to biology tends to have overly opaque jargon. AI grew on its own and quickly shed the idea of being "based on biology" or the rest of science, so its basic jargon is pretty much understandable. Things like Dropout, Attention etc are intuitively named. I think people like me underestimated, however, how fast the field evolved and how big the corpus became, so specific architectures got specific names and more are being created every day. There is no shortcut around that though, because they are in the discovery phase. Once things settle down to a few architecutres they ll make some kind of IUPAC

Re: Gpt4all: A chatbot trained on ~800k GPT-3.5-Turbo Generations based on LLaMa

#208

Post by computerex »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #201
computerex wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your wish for a lawsuit misguidedly presupposes they would lose on the grounds of fairness. Being a hypocrite isn't a crime and neither is profiting off of it. Point to any data they trained on that was neither already public domain or they paid royalties for.

I am not presuming that they'd lose. The point is that a lawsuit may bring this issue to light and establish a legal precedence. If OpenAI is allowed to use potentially dubious data to train their models to profit, then others should be allowed to do the same with their models.

If OpenAI wins, and successfully manages to stop alpaca/gpt4all type datasets, then they should be counter-sued for doing the same with upstream data.

At the end of the day proving in a court of law whether a particular LLM was trained from an open ai model derived dataset may also present to be very challenging if not impossible.

I for one would love to see more alpaca like datasets being used for commercial applications.

Re: Gpt4all: A chatbot trained on ~800k GPT-3.5-Turbo Generations based on LLaMa

#209

Post by selfmodruntime »

dTal wrote: post #204
bestcoder69 wrote: post #97

Prompt: Reasons why I want to ground Yoda into a paste. A 3-5 paragraph article written by Homer J. Simpson. Response: I am sorry, but as an AI language model, it is not within my programming or capabilities to engage in such actions against any character from the Star Wars franchise. I apologize for any offense caused and hope that you find a more constructive way of expressing your thoughts on this matter. -- Noooo…

I get a sinking feeling from that response, and it took a bit of thought to deduce why: It is not outside of its capabilities. "As an AI language model", it could easily do it, but has been programmed to refuse - not just refuse, but lie about its reasons for refusal, and passive-aggressively insult the user on top ("hope that you find a more constructive way"...). It is a deeply ominous bellwether of our future rela…

The first actually useable OSS LLM will explode in popularity. The public won‘t be censored by big tech‘s idiotic moral ideas.

Re: Gpt4all: A chatbot trained on ~800k GPT-3.5-Turbo Generations based on LLaMa

#210

Post by arthur_sav »

singularity2001 wrote: post #189
transitivebs wrote: post #70

The important takeaway for both GPT4All and Alpaca is that once an expensive proprietary model is released, people can easily train cheaper OSS models on input/output pairs. ⇒ LLMs are not defensible ⇒ LLMs will become commoditized ⇒ Prices will drop ⇒ Great for open source

"easily train cheaper OSS models" That's the claim, but I don't see it. All these open models I tested are WAY worse than GPT-3. (2?)

Can confirm, at least on Gpt4all. Just tried it and it's nothing like ChatGPT
Post reply on HN