121–130 of 527 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't leak it. Someone else did.
They have tacitly endorsed the leak. https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/pull/73#issuecomme...
People have gotten DMCA takedown requests from them over Llama repositories
I've spent an embarassing amount of time since the llamas leaked playing with them, the tools to run them, and writing wrappers for them. They are technically alternatives in the sense that they're incomparably better chat bots than anything in the past. But at least for the 30B and under versions (65B is too big for me to run), no matter what fine tuning is done (alpaca, gpt4all, vicuna, etc), the llamas themselves…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Everything it reads is mapped into language, not concept space Umm I'm pretty sure it's discovered concepts through compressing text - it seems perfectly capable of generalizing concepts
> it seems perfectly capable of generalizing concepts How would you support that perception?
I've spent an embarassing amount of time since the llamas leaked playing with them, the tools to run them, and writing wrappers for them. They are technically alternatives in the sense that they're incomparably better chat bots than anything in the past. But at least for the 30B and under versions (65B is too big for me to run), no matter what fine tuning is done (alpaca, gpt4all, vicuna, etc), the llamas themselves…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have tacitly endorsed the leak. https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/pull/73#issuecomme...
Only because publicly visible actions are worse for them People have gotten DMCA takedown requests from them over Llama repositories
Is this a tactical leak, stemming from a "commoditize your complement" strategy? Open source as a strategic weapon, without having to explain board members/shareholders/whatever that you threw around money on training an open sourced model?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a bug. It's an architectural defect / limitation in our understanding of how to build AI. That makes it a strictly harder problem that will take longer. And it's not totally clear to me that you'll get there purely with LLMs. LLMs accomplish a good chunk of what we classify as intelligence for sure. But it's missing the cognition / reasoning skills and the open question is whether you can solve that by just…
GPT 4 will admit to not knowing things in many cases where 3.5turbo does not (tested the same prompt), and either will stop there or go off on a "but if it did exist it might go something like this" type continuation. It still hallucinates a lot, but it's not at all clear that this will be all that difficult an issue to solve given the progress.
"The training and serving code, along with an online demo, are publicly available for non-commercial use." (from Vicuna's home page.) In what universe is that "open source"?!
I've spent an embarassing amount of time since the llamas leaked playing with them, the tools to run them, and writing wrappers for them. They are technically alternatives in the sense that they're incomparably better chat bots than anything in the past. But at least for the 30B and under versions (65B is too big for me to run), no matter what fine tuning is done (alpaca, gpt4all, vicuna, etc), the llamas themselves…
Your conclusion seems not to be warranted since you haven't tried out the 65B model.
I've talked to a couple dozen people in real time who've played with up to 30B but no one I know has the resources to run the 65B at all or fast enough to actually use and get an opinion of. None of the open source llama projects out there are using 65B in practice (despite support for it) so I think my 30B and under conclusions are applicable to the topic the article covers. I'd love to be wrong and I'm excited for this to change in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright is a practical right, not an inherent right. The only reasons humans get copyright at all is because it's useful for society to give it to them. The onus should be on OpenAI to prove that it will benefit society overall if AIs are given copyright. We've already decided that many non-human processes/entities don't get copyright because there doesn't seem to be any reason to grant those entities copyright. --…
> The comparison to humans is interesting though, because teaching a human how to do something doesn't grant you copyright over their output. Ehh, in rare cases in can though. If you have someone sign an NDA, they can't go and publish technical details about something confidential that they were trained on. For example, this is fairly common in the tech industry when we send engineers to train on proprietary hardware…
And I think nearly everyone would agree that it would be perfectly fine and reasonable for an AI trained on a proprietary corpus of information to produce copyrightable/secret material in response to questions.
Just because I built an internal corporate search tool, doesn't mean that you get to view its output.
The question at play here is when the AI is trained on information that's in the public commons. The 'teacher' analogy is, in this sense, a very good one.