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

Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 130 posts

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#31

Post by bick_nyers »

pkdpic wrote: post #30
bick_nyers wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Advance the foundation models as far as possible to create a representation of the internet/human experience and place safeguards on top. Don't want your LLM to be used to create erotic fanfiction? Instead of gutting the LLM, just put a detector on the query and answers feeding into the LLM. Thankfully, with a non-neutered model you have access to a tool than can be used to perform such detection...

Or tell another instance of the model to act as a constitutional-driven censor and let them duke it out.

Now that's a fanfic I would read!

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#32

Post by barbariangrunge »

bick_nyers wrote: post #9

I personally do not want the companies to release training data (at least for a while) because then it gives people leverage to neuter it. I don't want a sanitized LLM, and I don't have $60M lying around to train my own. Copyrighted material, sexual content, political opinions, throw it all in and release it please! Yes, reducing bias in the models is a noble goal, but introducing new bias and blindspots to do it is…

> Copyrighted material, sexual content, political opinions, throw it all in and release it please!

Why copyrighted material? Could we stop celebrating how tech is going to steal everyone's copyrighted works in a massive effort to replace the artists who made it? Why does everyone here hate artists so much? Do they not deserve any rights over their IP, eg, the right to say no when someone wants to make derivative works that replace them from it?

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#35

Post by barbariangrunge »

version_five wrote: post #15
aaur0 wrote: post #12

I wrote a small piece sharing my views on the topic https://medium.com/@anandandbeyond/rethinking-open-source-fo...

And posted the link to your subscribers only medium page twice in this thread

devils advocate: if it wasn't subscribers only, google's crawler would be stealing it right now to train an ai with, ie, illegally creating derivative works based on their articles

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#36

Post by Sterm »

bick_nyers wrote: post #9

I personally do not want the companies to release training data (at least for a while) because then it gives people leverage to neuter it. I don't want a sanitized LLM, and I don't have $60M lying around to train my own. Copyrighted material, sexual content, political opinions, throw it all in and release it please! Yes, reducing bias in the models is a noble goal, but introducing new bias and blindspots to do it is…

[dead]

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#37

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

I think we have forgotten the foundation of open source which was free software which was about empower the user.

Instead of all these complicated criteria, there are only 2 criteria that get to the heart of the question:

1. Can you run this on your own hardware

2. Can you use this directly or tweak this as a community to make porn without a bunch of barriers

This gets to the heart of the matter: Can you run the software without having to be dependent on the company, and can you modify the software to do something that the company may not want you to do with it.

If it is able to pass both tests, it is functionally "open source"

By that criteria, ChatGPT is definitely not open but Llama is closer

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#38

Post by paul_funyun »

barbariangrunge wrote: post #32
bick_nyers wrote: post #9

I personally do not want the companies to release training data (at least for a while) because then it gives people leverage to neuter it. I don't want a sanitized LLM, and I don't have $60M lying around to train my own. Copyrighted material, sexual content, political opinions, throw it all in and release it please! Yes, reducing bias in the models is a noble goal, but introducing new bias and blindspots to do it is…

> Copyrighted material, sexual content, political opinions, throw it all in and release it please! Why copyrighted material? Could we stop celebrating how tech is going to steal everyone's copyrighted works in a massive effort to replace the artists who made it? Why does everyone here hate artists so much? Do they not deserve any rights over their IP, eg, the right to say no when someone wants to make derivative work…

I can't imagine what goes through the head of someone who thinks they don't have the right to say no. They don't have the right to be listened to or the right to use state power to enforce a colloquial notion of IP and rights with no basis in law or fact, but they surely have the right to say "No!"

In all seriousness, they're afraid because they aren't very pleasant. AI will write things people will like and enjoy hearing. Preachy artists these days just make works they think people ought to want, and ought to like. Getting moralism out of art will be a great technological accomplishment.

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#40

Post by accrual »

barbariangrunge wrote: post #32
bick_nyers wrote: post #9

I personally do not want the companies to release training data (at least for a while) because then it gives people leverage to neuter it. I don't want a sanitized LLM, and I don't have $60M lying around to train my own. Copyrighted material, sexual content, political opinions, throw it all in and release it please! Yes, reducing bias in the models is a noble goal, but introducing new bias and blindspots to do it is…

> Copyrighted material, sexual content, political opinions, throw it all in and release it please! Why copyrighted material? Could we stop celebrating how tech is going to steal everyone's copyrighted works in a massive effort to replace the artists who made it? Why does everyone here hate artists so much? Do they not deserve any rights over their IP, eg, the right to say no when someone wants to make derivative work…

I wonder if there's a future title like "AI Model Artist", "AI Model Contributor", "AI Model Author", "AI Model Creator" or something for creators who contribute to the models in use.

While I love we can all immediately benefit from previous works, I feel for the countless artists and creators who's work has been integrated into models with zero compensation. There are already outstanding lawsuits seeking reparations, but this is new legal territory and there will be a lot to learn and decide in the future.

Post reply on HN