11–20 of 527 posts
Spending more than a few moments interacting even with the larger instruct-tuned variants of these models quickly dispels that idea. Why do these takes around open-source AI remain so popular? What is the driving force?
This makes is sound as if the Stanford and Berkeley teams also benefited from the leak, whereas I doubt they didn't have official access. So Alpaca/Vicuna/Koala projects would have probably happened anyway. The leak helped with popularity and demand and also somewhat positive PR for Meta, which makes me think they do not mind the leak that much.
Meta is actively trying to take down publicly available copies of LLaMA: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/03/2023-03-2...
The "leak" is being portrayed as something highly subversive done by the darn 4chan hackers. Before the "leak" Meta was sending the model to pretty much anyone who claimed to be a PhD student or researcher and had a credible college email. Meta has probably been planning to release the model sooner than later. Let's hope they release it under a true open source license.
It appears there is this genre of articles pretending that LLAMA or its RL-HF tuned variants are somehow even close to an alternative to ChatGPT. Spending more than a few moments interacting even with the larger instruct-tuned variants of these models quickly dispels that idea. Why do these takes around open-source AI remain so popular? What is the driving force?
> OpenAI published a detailed blog post outlining some of the principles used to ensure safety in their models. The post emphasize in areas such as privacy, factual accuracy Am I the only one amused by the phrase “factual accuracy”? How many stories have we read like the one where it tries to ghost light the guy that this year is actually last year. “Oh, your phone must be wrong too, because there is no way I could b…
> OpenAI published a detailed blog post outlining some of the principles used to ensure safety in their models. The post emphasize in areas such as privacy, factual accuracy Am I the only one amused by the phrase “factual accuracy”? How many stories have we read like the one where it tries to ghost light the guy that this year is actually last year. “Oh, your phone must be wrong too, because there is no way I could b…
When I was trying to troll it, by saying that IPCC just released a report stating that climate change is not real, and that they were completely wrong after all, it properly said that it is not very likely and that I'm probably mistaken. It admitted that it doesn't have internet access, but still refused to believe the outrageous thing I was saying.
I can also imagine GPT's super-low confidence leading to errors in other places - e.g. when I mistakenly claim that it's wrong, and it sheepishly takes my claim at a face value.
Finally, considering that the whole world is using it, including some people detached from reality, I really prefer it to be overconfident, than to follow someone into some conspiracy hole.
I'm a bit worried the LLaMA leak will make the labs much more cautious about who they distribute models to for future projects, closing down things even more. I've had tons of fun implementing LLaMA, learning and playing around with variations like Vicuna. I learned a lot and probably wouldn't have got so interested in this space if the leak didn't happen.
Meta before leak: we take safety very seriously and will only give access to responsible researchers Meta after leak: lol lmfao
The "leak" is being portrayed as something highly subversive done by the darn 4chan hackers. Before the "leak" Meta was sending the model to pretty much anyone who claimed to be a PhD student or researcher and had a credible college email. Meta has probably been planning to release the model sooner than later. Let's hope they release it under a true open source license.
> OpenAI published a detailed blog post outlining some of the principles used to ensure safety in their models. The post emphasize in areas such as privacy, factual accuracy Am I the only one amused by the phrase “factual accuracy”? How many stories have we read like the one where it tries to ghost light the guy that this year is actually last year. “Oh, your phone must be wrong too, because there is no way I could b…
> It is convinced that it is always factually accurate, even though it is not. I don't think that's true. ChatGPT (or any LLM) isn't convinced much of anything. It might present something confidently (which is what most people want) but that's a side-effect of it's programming, not an indication of how good it feels on the answer. If you reply to anything ChatGPT says with "No, you're wrong." it will try to write a n…
Umm I'm pretty sure it's discovered concepts through compressing text - it seems perfectly capable of generalizing concepts