Live data from Hacker News

GPT-3.5 Turbo fine-tuning and API updates

openai.com

21–30 of 244 posts

Re: GPT-3.5 Turbo fine-tuning and API updates

#21

Quite exciting, this is the first time their "Chat" model is available for finetuning. Has anyone successfully bypassed the current Ai detectors using fine-tuned models? I know it's possible, I'm just trying to conceptualize how the dataset would be organized...

Why would you need to fine-tune? Those detectors are completely broken, simple chain of thought will get you something that doesn't "sound" like ChatGPT, and from there you're just as likely to be detected as "AI" as a human would be

Re: GPT-3.5 Turbo fine-tuning and API updates

#22

> It is very important to us that the deployment of fine-tuning is safe. To preserve the default model's safety features through the fine-tuning process, fine-tuning training data is passed through our Moderation API and a GPT-4 powered moderation system to detect unsafe training data that conflict with our safety standards. I wish there was some documentation on what kinds of things are determined unsafe. There are…

I'd like to see this too. I'd hate for AI moderation to become the next generation of "the social media feed algorithm" where it's completely opaque. Trading echo chambers for censorship in that case.

Re: GPT-3.5 Turbo fine-tuning and API updates

#23

Quite exciting, this is the first time their "Chat" model is available for finetuning. Has anyone successfully bypassed the current Ai detectors using fine-tuned models? I know it's possible, I'm just trying to conceptualize how the dataset would be organized...

>Has anyone successfully bypassed the current Ai detectors using fine-tuned models?

I think you can just use the base model easily.

Re: GPT-3.5 Turbo fine-tuning and API updates

#25

Generating from a finetuned GPT 3.5 Turbo is 8x the cost of generating from the base model, so you really have to be in the “reduce prompt size by 90%” bucket they mention to get cost effectiveness out of it.

If you do a lot of retrieval augmentation, then the 8x cost might still be cheaper than burning a lot of tokens on injected context.

Fine tuning is not a replacement for retrieval augmentation. If you wanted to do that you'd be better off fine-tuning BERT to retrieve data more effectively (identify key points, smarter summarization, cross-encoder relevancy, etc)

Re: GPT-3.5 Turbo fine-tuning and API updates

#26
post #18

Can anyone who's worked with fine-tuning models this large weigh in on how much fine-tuning data is typically required to be effective? Can 100k tokens (as mentioned in the docs) really influence the behavior of the base model that much, or was that just a toy example?

Just look at instruct fine tuning that is being done to completion models to turn them into assistant models. A few thousand examples are enough to alter the behavior of the model and what and how it outputs things significantly and thoroughly.

Mechanisms like LoRA (a very efficient fine-tuning mechanism that has a accuracy penalty) change only a few layers at the top to alter the model considerably.

Re: GPT-3.5 Turbo fine-tuning and API updates

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do a lot of retrieval augmentation, then the 8x cost might still be cheaper than burning a lot of tokens on injected context.

Fine tuning is not a replacement for retrieval augmentation. If you wanted to do that you'd be better off fine-tuning BERT to retrieve data more effectively (identify key points, smarter summarization, cross-encoder relevancy, etc)

Could you elaborate? It may not be a replacement, but I can think of a few use cases where RAG could be avoided entirely by having the model be fine tuned on the right dataset.

Re: GPT-3.5 Turbo fine-tuning and API updates

#29

Quite exciting, this is the first time their "Chat" model is available for finetuning. Has anyone successfully bypassed the current Ai detectors using fine-tuned models? I know it's possible, I'm just trying to conceptualize how the dataset would be organized...

> Has anyone successfully bypassed the current Ai detectors using fine-tuned models?

If you actually try the AI "detectors" you'll find that they're about as accurate as a coin flip. They don't work. You already cannot detect GPT-created text.

Re: GPT-3.5 Turbo fine-tuning and API updates

#30
post #18

Can anyone who's worked with fine-tuning models this large weigh in on how much fine-tuning data is typically required to be effective? Can 100k tokens (as mentioned in the docs) really influence the behavior of the base model that much, or was that just a toy example?

From the newly-updated fine-tuning guide:

> To fine-tune a model, you are required to provide at least 10 examples. We typically see clear improvements from fine-tuning on 50 to 100 training examples with gpt-3.5-turbo but the right number varies greatly based on the exact use case.

> We recommend starting with 50 well-crafted demonstrations and seeing if the model shows signs of improvement after fine-tuning. In some cases that may be sufficient, but even if the model is not yet production quality, clear improvements are a good sign that providing more data will continue to improve the model. No improvement suggests that you may need to rethink how to set up the task for the model or restructure the data before scaling beyond a limited example set.

Post reply on HN