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

OpenAI's new open-source model is basically Phi-5

seangoedecke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 233 posts

Re: OpenAI's new open-source model is basically Phi-5

#101

Post by vunderba »

slt2021 wrote: post #58
kristopolous wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porn is always the frontier. It's a well-understood self-contained use-case without many externalities and simple business models. What more, with porn, the medium is the product probably more than the content. Having it on home-media in the 80s was the selling point. Getting it over the 1-900 phone lines or accessing it over the internet ... these were arguably the actual product. It might have been a driver of earl…

even if it is victim free, it can affect mental health in a way that a consumer will be more compelled to do a criminal act and create a real victim. let's say you publish a Steam game how to be a school shooter and shoot kids, wouldn't that lead to real school shootings ? who can definitely say that computer generated content about criminal behavior, won't lead to real crime with real victims? https://en.wikipedia.o…

There are hundreds of games designed to simulate criminal activities: hitman, the thief series, GTA, etc. I have yet to see a single reputable study that shows playing these games somehow results in an increase in that actual activity in real life.

Feels like you're falling into the same trap that Senator Lieberman did in the 90s, and just another spiritual successor to Satanic panic.

Re: OpenAI's new open-source model is basically Phi-5

#102

Post by eru »

setsewerd wrote: post #88
eru wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I swear they have tuned their models to waste tokens. Which seems a bit weird, because the customers of the chat interface (ie non-API customers) don't pay per token.

I've heard the theory a few times lately that AI businesses will increasingly move towards usage models over subscription models, so while it is probably accidental, it could also be a longer term strategy to normalize excessive token usage.

I don't know whether the major AI companies will move to usage models. But let's assume that they do.

However: I would expect chat interfaces to be charged per query, not per token. End users don't understand tokens, and don't want to have to understand tokens.

If you charge per query, you don't gain anything from extra wordy responses.

Re: OpenAI's new open-source model is basically Phi-5

#103

Post by wkat4242 »

wmf wrote: post #20

I saw a bunch of people complaining on Twitter about how GPT-OSS can't be customized or has no soul and I noticed that none of them said what they were trying to accomplish. "The main use-case for fine-tuning small language models is for erotic role-play, and there’s a serious demand." Ah.

It's not just erotic role play that the censorship affects. My life involves a lot of sexual discussions and that means that everyday talk, chat summaries, email rewrites or translations will cause the model to shut down. I do the latter a lot especially to find colloquialisms because Google translate is often too literal. It's so annoying.

Right now I'm using abliterated llama 3.1. I have no need for vision but I want to use the saved memory for more context so 3.2 is not so relevant. Llama 3.1 is perfect. But I want to try newer models too.

Until gpt-oss can be uncensored it's no use to me. But if there was nothing erotic in its training data it can't be. And no, I never have it do erotic roleplay. I'm not really interested when there's no real people involved.

Re: OpenAI's new open-source model is basically Phi-5

#104

Post by Mars008 »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #12
lifis wrote: post #11

Does anyone know how synthetic data is commonly generated? Do they just sample the model randomly starting from an empty state, perhaps with some filtering? Or do they somehow automatically generate prompts and if how? Do they have some feedback mechanism, e.g. do they maybe test the model while training and somehow generate data related to poorly performing tests?

I don't know about Phi-5, but earlier versions of Phi were trained on stories written by larger models trained on real-world data. Since it's Microsoft, they probably used one of the OpenAI GPT series.

> stories written by larger models trained on real-world data

I suspect there are no larger models trained on pure real-world data. They all use a mix of real and generated.

Re: OpenAI's new open-source model is basically Phi-5

#105

Post by Mars008 »

lifis wrote: post #11

Does anyone know how synthetic data is commonly generated? Do they just sample the model randomly starting from an empty state, perhaps with some filtering? Or do they somehow automatically generate prompts and if how? Do they have some feedback mechanism, e.g. do they maybe test the model while training and somehow generate data related to poorly performing tests?

One way of getting good random samples is to give model a random starting points. For example: "write a short story about PP doing GG in XX". Here PP, GG and XX are filled algorithmically from lists of persons, actions and locations. The problem is model's randomly generated output from the same prompt isn't actually that random. Changing the temperature parameter doesn't help much.

But in general it's a big secret because the training data and techniques are the only difference between models as architecture is more or less settled.

Re: OpenAI's new open-source model is basically Phi-5

#107

Post by [deleted] »

danw1979 wrote: post #99
kristopolous wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if there are I and likely you lack the qualifications of making any clinical takeaways from them. I'd really defer to experts. I try to make tools in good faith and hope they're used responsibly to make the world a better place. I'm not a clinical psychologist nor can I pretend to understand medical literature like someone with a PhD

I can’t tell if the part of this post after they have made this “thing of questionable safety” and then bury their head in the sand is satirical or not.

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI's new open-source model is basically Phi-5

#108

Post by kristopolous »

danw1979 wrote: post #99
kristopolous wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if there are I and likely you lack the qualifications of making any clinical takeaways from them. I'd really defer to experts. I try to make tools in good faith and hope they're used responsibly to make the world a better place. I'm not a clinical psychologist nor can I pretend to understand medical literature like someone with a PhD

I can’t tell if the part of this post after they have made this “thing of questionable safety” and then bury their head in the sand is satirical or not.

Why is it controversial to state that medical expertise is a technical field that engineers should defer to experts in?

It doesn't mean I can do things recklessly. Instead it's an acknowledgment of when I need to defer to somebody else just like I need to call up an attorney for legal stuff or an accountant for tax stuff.

Re: OpenAI's new open-source model is basically Phi-5

#109

Post by fho »

sterlind wrote: post #87
wmf wrote: post #20

I saw a bunch of people complaining on Twitter about how GPT-OSS can't be customized or has no soul and I noticed that none of them said what they were trying to accomplish. "The main use-case for fine-tuning small language models is for erotic role-play, and there’s a serious demand." Ah.

it's not erotic role-play, but I have a use case of making an AI-powered NetHack clone. specifically, to generate dungeon layouts, dialog for NPCs and to fill in the boatloads of minutae and interactions which NetHack is famous for. you kind of need soul for that, and a lot of background knowledge on mythology/fantasy lore, but also tool use to work the world systems.

Are you getting good results with this? Some time ago I build an "overworld simulator" by having a bunch if jsons that represented villages, characters, building, story hooks and plots. I just asked ChatGPT to "simulate the gameworld by a week".

Technically this worked great, but everything was somewhat bland and generic.

Noteable not-highlights: - there is a shimmer in the nearby forests that keep villagers up at night -> it's an orc camp - there is a mysterious figure in town -> it's a Aragon type ranger

Re: OpenAI's new open-source model is basically Phi-5

#110

Post by numpad0 »

School-Cotton wrote: post #76
landl0rd wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not unreasonable to suspect that engaging in high-fidelity simulations of these behaviors will further entrench and worsen paraphilias. This is pretty evident with the progression of many pornography addictions that don’t include these sorts of things that still follow the pattern of increasing novelty seeking leading to increasingly deviant stuff. I am at a principled level uneasy with what’s fundamentally a so…

Are there any actual studies on this? Does access to simulations of illegal or objectionable material make pedophiles, rape fetishists, etc. more or less likely to try to access the real thing (or even worse, to try to commit crimes in the real world)? Because both possibilities are plausible, it’s hard to know which is correct.

Science always says more porn/gore = fewer crimes statistically. So opinions like these rarely come with citations.

It's not completely clear if it's just a spurious correlation or if there's a real causation, but eh, more training data + neutral alignment training is how humans train AIs, I don't see why would some says that's not how baby humans are to be trained.

Post reply on HN