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

GPT-4 details leaked?

threadreaderapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 648 posts

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#101

Post by maximamas »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #80
carabiner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We must destroy OpenAI!

Not sure if you're being sarcastic but I agree. Humans should not have AI research or advanced AI at all. It (a) removes purpose from people, (b) presents a situation that is too alien for human minds to handle, (c) increases the addictiveness of technology and thereby pushes us further into growing the technological system, (d) crosses the "adaptability threshhold", i.e. the point at which the PACE of technological…

It’s ironic you say: “we are playing with fire.” Playing with fire is, in large part, literally how humans have come to dominate this planet. Why stop now?

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#102

Post by drak0n1c »

flangola7 wrote: post #57
esaym wrote: post #54

Everyone hates on crypto because of all the electricity use for mining. But how much electricity is the training of all the giant LLMs costing us?

LLMs actually have tangible use (granted far from bespoke yet). Crypto mining has no tangible benefit.

Not tangible, but there will always be a theoretical and idealistic appeal for decentralized app/game/protocol hosting and governance. Corporate bodies like OpenAI, Twitter, YouTube, Blizzard Entertainment have made unpopular changes to popular services they own in a centralized fashion. What if LLMs, social media, and MMOs were both open source and hosted and controlled by their users, not just the whims of a single IP owner?

It seems that much like running a co-op or commune the barrier is whether enough people care to take up the fraction of effort and cost it takes to join such an arrangement.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#103

Post by Llamamoe »

juliensalinas wrote: post #100
kyledrake wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately I've found the current OSS models to be vastly inferior to the OpenAI models. Would love to see someone actually get close to what they can do with GPT-3.5/4, except capable of running on commodity GPUs. What's the most impressive open model so far?

LLaMA 30B or 60B can be very impressive when correctly prompted. Deploying the 60B version is a challenge though and you might need to apply 4-bit quantization with something like https://github.com/PanQiWei/AutoGPTQ or https://github.com/qwopqwop200/GPTQ-for-LLaMa . Then you can improve the inference speed by using https://github.com/turboderp/exllama . If you prefer to use an "instruct" model à la ChatGPT (i.e. tha…

How low can you get the memory and computational power requirements that way?

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#104

Post by qwertox »

> This, of course, is “only” a batch size of 7.5 million tokens per expert due to not every expert seeing all tokens.

> Mixture of Expert Tradeoffs: There are multiple MoE tradeoffs taken: For example, MoE is incredibly difficult to deal with on inference because not every part of the model is utilized on every token generation.

Are these experts able to communicate among them in one query? How do they get selected? How do they know who to pass information to?

Would I be able to influence the selection of experts by how I create my questions? For example to ensure that a question about code gets passed directly to an expert in code? I feel silly asking this question, but I honestly have no idea how to interpret this.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#105

Post by H8crilA »

behnamoh wrote: post #26
krackers wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting on a meta point that the more clickbaity title "GPT-4 details leaked" won out over the more dispassionate but drier "GPT-4 Architecture, Infrastructure, Training Dataset, Costs".

Clickbait has its time and place. Despite my hatred towards it, sometimes it's really needed.

It is needed if you want people to click on your content more.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#106

Post by dclowd9901 »

maximamas wrote: post #101
vouaobrasil wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic but I agree. Humans should not have AI research or advanced AI at all. It (a) removes purpose from people, (b) presents a situation that is too alien for human minds to handle, (c) increases the addictiveness of technology and thereby pushes us further into growing the technological system, (d) crosses the "adaptability threshhold", i.e. the point at which the PACE of technological…

It’s ironic you say: “we are playing with fire.” Playing with fire is, in large part, literally how humans have come to dominate this planet. Why stop now?

To turn your metaphor on its head, we aren’t playing with fire when we use it constructively; rather we are very carefully and thoughtfully deploying it, no doubt due to our gradual and deadly lessons with it over time. When we “play” with it (a la fireworks or neglected campfires), it wreaks rampant destruction.

Being we are basically toddlers with this new technology, I would argue the breathless speed at which it’s finding its way into our lives tells me we are not being careful or thoughtful with it.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#107

Post by H8crilA »

swyx wrote: post #90
chucknthem wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know? do you have insider knowledge of this or is it just based on what they share publically?

as a fun ancedote, the Google Bard's implicit code execution update from *last month*, advertised by Sundar... no longer works https://twitter.com/swyx/status/1678495067663925248 i'd love to know whats going on in that team.

Probably safety-driven terror. They really really want to get their bots going, but in every single meeting some PM or other concerned engineer talks about safety and f**s up the entire meeting.

They even made the bot not respond to arithmetics questions because the bot is bad at this, lol. Someone who knows how to modify the bot had actually spent their time on something as unimportant as that.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#108

Post by twayt »

potatoman22 wrote: post #25

I wonder what the legal implications of them using SciHub and Libgen would be if that's true. I'd imagine OpenAI is big enough to make deals with publishers.

Libgen / Scihub or not, if the model can provide details about the book other than just high level info like the summary and no explicit deal with the publisher has been made, you can make a strong argument that it is plagiarism.

Even if bits and pieces of the book text are distributed across the internet and you end up picking up portions of the book, you still read the book.

It is extremely sad but ChatGPT will be taken down by the end of this year and replaced by a highly neutered model next year.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#109

Post by bayindirh »

maximamas wrote: post #101
vouaobrasil wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic but I agree. Humans should not have AI research or advanced AI at all. It (a) removes purpose from people, (b) presents a situation that is too alien for human minds to handle, (c) increases the addictiveness of technology and thereby pushes us further into growing the technological system, (d) crosses the "adaptability threshhold", i.e. the point at which the PACE of technological…

It’s ironic you say: “we are playing with fire.” Playing with fire is, in large part, literally how humans have come to dominate this planet. Why stop now?

Maybe because we're on the verge of being able to create fires which can actually consume the only home we have?

Playing with fire is in large part an ego and greed issue. Yes, it allows us to dominate, but at what cost?

I'd rather live a more balanced life than a greedy and ego driven life. I may not own the world, but I can be happy and sleep sound at night, and that matters.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#110

Post by rjb7731 »

I've previously noticed when playing with GPT-4 it can sometimes 'autocomplete' on different sections of the text its feeding back, sometimes what looks like 4 or more different sections. Might be unrelated but is this MoE in action or them streaming the response in some way?
Post reply on HN