11–20 of 36 posts
Whatever flavour of AI needs to be deterministic, which llama, et al are not. even if you turn the temperature right down.
As others have pointed out, its the training set that actually makes a model behave, hence why models are freely given away by large companies.
For example: >In the rush to deploy off-the-shelf proprietary LLMs, however, health-care institutions and other organizations risk ceding the control of medicine to opaque corporate interests. Medical care could rapidly become dependent on LLMs that are difficult to evaluate, and that can be modified or even taken offline without notice should the service be deemed no longer profitable
Even:
>LLMs often generate ... convincing outputs that are false
is already a problem the medical community has to address with existing tests.
Or:
>Another problem specific to proprietary LLMs is that companies’ dependency on profits creates an inherent conflict of interest that could inject instability into the provision of medical care.
Seemingly applies to essentially the entirety of medical supplies and medications.
I mean opensource is nice, but that's not actually going to make healthcare safer. Whatever flavour of AI needs to be deterministic, which llama, et al are not. even if you turn the temperature right down. As others have pointed out, its the training set that actually makes a model behave, hence why models are freely given away by large companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why EU's upcoming AI regulation requires foundational models to have full documentation , including detailed descriptions of training data etc.
I can't fathom why they didn't just require the models to make available the training data itself. Sure you might need to fork some cash so they can ship you hard drives but surely being audited by someone anyone is better than none.
To deploy generative AI in healthcare someone has to pay for the salaries of a lot of people to do the work. That means there needs to be a business model. I am not sure who will take an AI through regulatory procedures if it is open source and there is no way to make money from it. Open source is a useful tool for research yes. More of it would be nice. But I don’t understand how or why anyone is going to go through…
Many consumers, myself included, will -only- pay for technology if it is open source. In fact if something is proprietary I feel I am being cheated anyway and I might as well pirate it until I find something open to support.
Many of us are willing to pay for time and labor and to support development for our personal projects and businesses so long as we have the power to change that relationship later and keep the tech if third party company later goes evil or goes under.
If I do not have the source code, I do not own it. If I cannot own it, then why pay for it.
Also everything becomes open source eventually. Companies can choose to accelerate this and earn community goodwill that might make them money selling open source turn-key services, or be replaced by that same community eventually doing it all themselves.
No one pays for a license fee for the Linux kernel, but they pay their choice of cloud provider to host it. Choice. That is what I will pay for.
https://staltz.com/time-till-open-source-alternative.html
https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-ne...
In models, the training data (dataset) is frequently "closed", where it is not open to viewing. That's just the default behavior of publishing models. You don't need the dataset to use the model. The weights or tensors may be "open" in that we can see them, but they are fairly "not worth viewing" if we don't know the nature of the relationships between the tensors.
If we were able to figure out relationships between the tensors, and the dataset was not made open, then there might be a debate on whether or not certain use of that extracted or "transfer" knowledge is allowed.
For a "model" to be fully "open", it must publish the data it was trained on, the code it used to train itself, and its tensors or weights must not be encrypted or disallow establishing relationships in the weights.
To deploy generative AI in healthcare someone has to pay for the salaries of a lot of people to do the work. That means there needs to be a business model. I am not sure who will take an AI through regulatory procedures if it is open source and there is no way to make money from it. Open source is a useful tool for research yes. More of it would be nice. But I don’t understand how or why anyone is going to go through…
I mean opensource is nice, but that's not actually going to make healthcare safer. Whatever flavour of AI needs to be deterministic, which llama, et al are not. even if you turn the temperature right down. As others have pointed out, its the training set that actually makes a model behave, hence why models are freely given away by large companies.