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

281–290 of 648 posts

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#281

Post by adamhp »

ben_w wrote: post #242
grondilu wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> try to pressure the government into making it illegal for you to compete with us. I mean the guy who created GPT-4 literally demanded a ban of any system more powerful than GPT-4.

Are you sure that's not a quote from a game of telephone? What I've seen from the horse's mouth is more like: """There are several other areas I mentioned in my written testimony where I believe that companies like ours can partner with governments, including ensuring that the most powerful AI models adhere to a set of safety requirements, facilitating processes to develop and update safety measures, and examining op…

Same as any political argument today. Strip it completely of nuance. Put it in a Tweet. Get clicks.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#283

Post by PoignardAzur »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #239
xeckr wrote: post #135

If this is true, then: 1. Training took 21 yottaflops. When was the last time you saw the yotta- prefix for anything? 2. The training cost of GPT-4 is now only 1/3 of what it was about a year ago. It is absolutely staggering how quickly the price of training an LLM is dropping, which is great news for open source. The google memo was right about the lack of a moat.

>> The training cost of GPT-4 is now only 1/3 of what it was about a year ago. It is absolutely staggering how quickly the price of training an LLM is dropping, which is great news for open source. The google memo was right about the lack of a moat. That really doesn't change anything at all. The more training large models gets cheaper, the more large corporations are able to train larger models than everyone else. S…

> Yet, if I had a million dollars and you had a thousand dollars, I could still buy a thousand times more rice than you.

I think a better frame is, if rice got so absolutely cheap to make that anybody could spin up a bag of rice on a demand, anybody whose business model was based on selling rice sacks would be in trouble, especially if their specialty was selling rice in bulk instead of, eg, mom-and-pop restaurants selling cooked rice with flavors and a focus on customer experience.

(Not sure the metaphor is a good fit for AI. Maybe OpenAI comes up with GPT-5 and makes something so powerful that by the time OSS projects get to GPT-4 level nobody cares. But if GPT-5 is only incrementally better than GPT-4, then yeah, they have no moat.)

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#284

Post by PoignardAzur »

thifhi wrote: post #260
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The training cost of GPT-4 is now only 1/3 of what it was about a year ago. It is absolutely staggering how quickly the price of training an LLM is dropping, which is great news for open source. The google memo was right about the lack of a moat. That really doesn't change anything at all. The more training large models gets cheaper, the more large corporations are able to train larger models than everyone else. S…

Surely there are diminishing returns for the AI computing though? I mean, is a model with 10x the parameter count 10x better? I think it is still possible that the training costs will be irrelevant for all players at some point with this non-linear scale. Access to data is another story

It's not clear. Scaling laws still seem to hold AFAICT.

Right now the bottleneck is "how big a model can you fit on an H100 TPU". It's possible that in a few years, when bigger cards come out and/or we get better at compressing models, we'll get even better models just by increasing the scale.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#285

Post by npteljes »

DeathArrow wrote: post #270
varispeed wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like asking whether a carpenter is a scientist because they developed a cabinet...

Well, Wikipedia might be wrong, but this is how they describe Computer Science: "Computer science is the study of computation, information, and automation. Computer science spans theoretical disciplines (such as algorithms, theory of computation, and information theory) to applied disciplines (including the design and implementation of hardware and software). Though more often considered an academic discipline, compu…

I honestly feel like that, as a "Software Engineer". As the digital world is new, and full of similar concepts to the old analogue world, it's natural that we borrow names along with the concepts. Similar to how a lot of things in the sea are named after land things, with a marine prefix, like the sea horse, sea star, sea cucumber, and so on. And now in IT we have engineers, architects, rockstars, tribes, and science, even though, very often, they have no relation to the original profession or concept, and especially doesn't have the responsibility or impact of that.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#286

Post by CJefferson »

capableweb wrote: post #203
twayt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not a lawyer and obviously we won't get any definite answer unless it actually goes to court, all of this is just hand waving and guessing. But I think that unless GPT starts reciting large parts outside of the context of learning/education/research, reciting smaller snippets would fall into "fair use" and not be illegal.

For it to be fair use, they still have to have legally owned the book (as far as I understand).

You can't steal a book, photocopy some pages, then claim the photocopied pages are fair use.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#287

Post by holomanga »

numpad0 wrote: post #181
TeMPOraL wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: there's way too much "art makers", copyright is keeping the quality ceiling down, good content loses monetization game with spam - all while that "predictive text generator" is, for better or worse, pretty much the most magnificent piece of technology invented this century, and - for better or worse - it's likely to become next major shift to economy and life.

- HN on social media : The powers are too centralized, future is decentralization, question is how - HN on free software: is good - HN on copyright : WAY TOO MUCH PEASANTS CLAIMING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, RIGHTS THAT ARENT EVEN REAL, ART BE CENTRALIZED FOR MAXIMUM MONOPOLY

Hacker News has at least two users!

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#288

Post by tudorw »

PostOnce wrote: post #19

"Open" AI, a charity to benefit us all by pushing and publishing the frontier of scientific knowledge. Nevermind, fuckers, actually it's just to take your jobs and make a few VCs richer. We'll keep the science a secret and try to pressure the government into making it illegal for you to compete with us. https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp https://github.com/openlm-research/open_llama https://huggingface.co/TheBlok…

Sorry about the link.in style links but I just posted this there and came here and felt it might be interesting to someone, they do work!

...

Here's a round up of open source projects focused on allowing you to run your own model's locally ('AI'), they all take slightly different approaches although under the hood many use the same models.

https://lnkd.in/exKqJZm8 A gradio web UI for running Large Language Models like LLaMA, llama.cpp, GPT-J, Pythia, OPT, and GALACTICA. Its goal is to become the AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui of text generation.

https://lnkd.in/etVCmZHB With OpenLLM, you can run inference with any open-source large-language models, deploy to the cloud or on-premises, and build powerful AI apps. State-of-the-art LLMs: built-in supports a wide range of open-source LLMs and model runtime, including StableLM, Falcon, Dolly, Flan-T5, ChatGLM, StarCoder and more.

https://lnkd.in/e7-NKGzJ LocalAI is a drop-in replacement REST API that's compatible with OpenAI API specifications for local inferencing. It allows you to run LLMs (and not only) locally or on-prem with consumer grade hardware, supporting multiple model families that are compatible with the ggml format. Does not require GPU.

https://lnkd.in/ef_Sa9AN Multi-platform desktop app to download and run Large Language Models(LLM) locally in your computer

https://lnkd.in/e288q-Wb A desktop app for local, private, secured AI experimentation. Included out-of-the box are: A known-good model API and a model downloader, with descriptions such as recommended hardware specs, model license, blake3/sha256 hashes etc... A simple note-taking app, with inference config PER note. The note and its config are output into plain text .mdx format A model inference streaming server (/completion endpoint, similar to OpenAI)

https://lnkd.in/eycRJn6b Transcribe and translate audio offline on your personal computer. Powered by OpenAI's Whisper.

https://lnkd.in/eUrtE3uQ The easiest way to install and use Stable Diffusion on your computer. Does not require technical knowledge, does not require pre-installed software. 1-click install, powerful features, friendly community.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#289

Post by [deleted] »

astrange wrote: post #159
vouaobrasil wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every company who promotes and develops AI is morally responsible for the coming disaster that it will bring on us. If I could have one wish it would be that every trace of AI research is destroyed.

I recommend reading comments like this and substituting "a baby" for AI. A baby also can't be aligned and is capable of deciding to destroy the world. It's not gonna do it though.

[deleted]

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#290

Post by TeMPOraL »

Tepix wrote: post #218
koheripbal wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4-bit quantization removes a lot of the model's sophistication, and 60B parameters is still smaller than what GPT4 is using.

Does it? The GTPQ paper claims that the accuracy loss is small.

Can't lose what it didn't have in the first place.
Post reply on HN