381–390 of 562 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A reminder that llama isn't legal for the vast majority of use cases. Unless you signed their contract and then you can use it only for research purposes.
OpenLLaMA is though. https://github.com/openlm-research/open_llama All of these are surmountable problems. We can beat OpenAI. We can drain their moat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're giving people access to GPT-4 via Bing for free , but apparently can't accommodate paying API users!? That makes no sense. What makes much more sense -- especially if you listen to his interviews -- is that Sam Altman doesn't think you can be trusted with the power of GPT-4 via an API unless it has first been aligned to death.
Microsoft is giving that for free but I assume they're paying OpenAI for it. And having such a big anchor tenant, its reasonable that you would prioritize them if GPUs are in short supply.
Promote and proliferate local LLMs. If you use GPT, you're giving OpenAI money to lobby the government so they'll have no competitors, ultimately screwing yourself, your wallet, and the rest of us too. OpenAI has no moat, unless you give them money to write legislation. I can currently run some scary smart and fast LLMs on a 5 year old laptop with no GPU. The future is, at least, interesting.
Can you elaborate on scary smart and fast? It's been a month or two since I've tried but the results were depressingly slow and useless for more or less every task I tried. Every time a model is claimed to be "90% of GPT-3" I get excited and every time it's very disappointing. (On that note, after using GPT-4, GPT-3 now seems disappointing almost every time I interact with it.)
There's definitely some prompt magic openai does behind the scenes that helps beat the raw style local llms usually go for. With proper prompting you can get chatgpt like answers.
Promote and proliferate local LLMs. If you use GPT, you're giving OpenAI money to lobby the government so they'll have no competitors, ultimately screwing yourself, your wallet, and the rest of us too. OpenAI has no moat, unless you give them money to write legislation. I can currently run some scary smart and fast LLMs on a 5 year old laptop with no GPU. The future is, at least, interesting.
Promote and proliferate local LLMs. If you use GPT, you're giving OpenAI money to lobby the government so they'll have no competitors, ultimately screwing yourself, your wallet, and the rest of us too. OpenAI has no moat, unless you give them money to write legislation. I can currently run some scary smart and fast LLMs on a 5 year old laptop with no GPU. The future is, at least, interesting.
But to address both: is it very relevant what LLM you use right now? Local or hosted, openAI or other?
It seems like the interface has converged around chat-based prompts.
New ideas for tuning or improving the efficiency of foundational models are published almost every week.
If one wants to build a product on top of of generative AI, why not simply start with what’s free or works with one’s dev environment?
Presumably, the interaction with or API to text-based gen AI will be very similar no matter what engine is best for your use case at any given time.
This would imply these backends will be swappable, the way web services are that copy AWS S3 APIs.
So, to return to the point, can’t people just build their product with openAI or other and plan to move away based on the cost and fit for their circumstances?
Couldn’t someone say prototype the entire product on some lower-quality LLM and occasionally pass requests to GPT4 to validate behavior?
It seems far-fetched to believe this tech can be constrained by legislation.
OpenAI can lobby all they want, it won’t necessarily buy them anything. Look what happened with FTX.
Since LLMs can be run locally and the engines be black boxes to the user, how could a legislative act really prevent them from being everywhere—-especially given the public utility.
Yikes. They're actually killing off text-davinci-003. RIP to the most capable remaining model and RIP to all text completion style freedom. Now it's censored/aligned chat or instruct models with arbitrary input metaphor limits for everything. gpt3.5-turbo is terrible in comparison. This will end my usage of openai for most things. I doubt my $5-$10 API payments per month will matter. This just lights more of a fire u…
Yikes. They're actually killing off text-davinci-003. RIP to the most capable remaining model and RIP to all text completion style freedom. Now it's censored/aligned chat or instruct models with arbitrary input metaphor limits for everything. gpt3.5-turbo is terrible in comparison. This will end my usage of openai for most things. I doubt my $5-$10 API payments per month will matter. This just lights more of a fire u…
I wonder if there's some element of face-saving here to avoid a lawsuit that may come from someone that uses the model to perform negative actions. In general I've found that gpt3.5-turbo is better than text-davinci-003 in most cases, but I agree, it's quite sad that they're getting rid of the unaligned/censored model.
>Developers wishing to continue using their fine-tuned models beyond January 4, 2024 will need to fine-tune replacements atop the new base GPT-3 models (ada-002, babbage-002, curie-002, davinci-002), or newer models (gpt-3.5-turbo, gpt-4). Once this feature is available later this year, we will give priority access to GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4 fine-tuning to users who previously fine-tuned older models. We acknowledge…
(I work at OpenAI) We're planning to cover the cost for fine-tuning replacement models. We're still working through the exact mechanics that will work best for customers, and will be reaching out to customers to get feedback on different approaches in the next few weeks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not a “random pip”. The maintainer is a well-known open source developer (one of the creators of Django and Datasette). It’s also a very small codebase – not many places for malicious code to hide.
OK but I mean I don't know them and it could have been someone pretending to be them, and probably it's easily possible to trick me about API keys. We are discussing it on a hacker news website do you seriously think tricks couldn't be hidden in a repo like that.