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

Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 130 posts

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#121

Post by Kuinox »

__loam wrote: post #85
Kuinox wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go on youtube and type "copy arstyle". Now tell me how artists were not stealing from each other.

Artists are generally pretty encouraging to people entering the field and using their stuff as reference for new artists. That actually contributes to art. It's definitely not the same thing as a massive tech corporation trying to automate their livelihoods, but please keep making this flawed argument analogizing two completely different processes.

> It's definitely not the same thing as a massive tech corporation trying to automate their livelihoods, but please keep making this flawed argument analogizing two completely different processes.

Ah yes, the famous massive tech corporation behind stable diffusion.

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#122

Post by dns_snek »

charcircuit wrote: post #45
Havoc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed it's annoying, but on a certain level also not entirely wrong. In a software 2.0 [0] world the weights are functionally the code in that it is what gets you from input to output. Open weights or something similar would be better though [0] https://karpathy.medium.com/software-2-0-a64152b37c35

Weights are configuration.

Are symbols in your source file merely a configuration file for the compiler/interpreter?

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#123

Post by ineedasername »

NLPaep wrote: post #114
ineedasername wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I think you’re right, it’s reasonable to expect a company to at least buy a single copy of each book (or whatever it eats) it ingests if the work could not otherwise be legally obtained for free. Or something reasonable along those lines

Yes, let’s shut out the small players now go Microsoft can bilk us

It’s not Microsoft’s fault that people are generally required to buy a book in order to read it. You could say the same thing about any business with a high capital cost required to get up and running. Want to start a supermarket? That’s many $Millions to plan, buy/rent land, build the facility, stock the shelves, etc. Starting any business costs money, and some cost a lot of money. Suppliers of the materials or feedstock required to start them aren’t to blame. If I want to fine tune a LLM to be an expert on the Dune book series, should I be allowed to download a copy without paying, or should I have to pay $8 for a copy before I feed it to the model? I’m sure the publisher would want me to pay some ridiculous amount but that is a different argument than requiring the purchase of a single copy that anyone would have to do to get access to the content.

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#124

Post by version_five »

version_five wrote: post #5
smoldesu wrote: post #2

Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36820122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36806536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36791671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36783019

To be fair, the title is the same but this article is really about a study of the openness characteristics of different AI models, which is new. This link had the comparison of different models: https://opening-up-chatgpt.github.io/

Also, there's an error in that table, the first model "Bloomz" does not have an open source license, on the HF page for the model it shows a RAIL license which is a restrictive license that limits you to "approved" uses. The license link goes to the github repo where the code is released under Apache 2.0. I didn't review the rest but I'd say it calls the ranking into question.

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#125

Post by kristopolous »

reverius42 wrote: post #115
kristopolous wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An grammar so no because no rules yes Have. then its they're simple she Great understand your of problem in yes? Or did I break some rules there? We're not talking Oxford commas here. There are fundamental structures. For instance, If I made that "are there fundamental structures" then it's a question. Basic grammar is very real and not some subjective ephemeral thoughtstuff with wildly different opinions. It's so ob…

It was more the correct spelling claim I object to. Considering all variations of English.

The point stands. Things are often depicted too binary and simplistic. Many subjective things also get smuggled in as if they were objective to hide their ideology and the word "truth" is used to stop people from questioning things.

I'm totally onboard with that.

At the same time, when talking about the physical world, most things are not like that. Humans for instance, get around by moving limbs called feet and not flapping feathered wings like a bird. This is the level of obvious I'm talking about.

The secondary point was that many things are this level of obvious and also specialized. For example: how does the animal cacomantis castaneiventris get around? Unless you have some kind of specialized knowledge you wouldn't know that's a type of bird.

The internet is awash in unspecialized people opining on specialized knowledge that is only controversial to the untrained eye in the same way that students don't get As on every exam they take. You need to actively work around people talking out of their bounds if you want your training data to be accurate

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#126

Post by jehb »

version_five wrote: post #6
jehb wrote: post #4

Of note, if you're interested in helping participate in the discussion of what an open source AI would actually look like, the Open Source Initiative is looking for your help: https://opensource.org/deepdive/

In there somewhere in there where they are asking for input? It presents itself that way but it seems the only way to "help" is to propose a presentation under their call for speakers: https://sessionize.com/deepdiveai Is there another way to contribute?

As I read the process, at this point they're primarily looking for "conversation starters" (my phrase, not theirs) in the form of presentations, as well as attendees to discuss at a number of in-person events this year (I'll be at the one at All Things Open in Raleigh NC in October). I think once they've got something a little more substantial to review, they'll have a more robust "public comment"-type process.

I'm sure you could also offer a meta-comment on the process itself.

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#127

Post by charcircuit »

dns_snek wrote: post #122
charcircuit wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weights are configuration.

Are symbols in your source file merely a configuration file for the compiler/interpreter?

No, but I would consider the command line flags to be configuration.

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#128

Post by CamperBob2 »

threeseed wrote: post #101
CamperBob2 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing them to block human intellectual progress may not be the long-term win you assume it is.

And some would argue that billion dollar companies like OpenAI, Meta etc should figure out a way to compensate the people who created the content they depend on.

Making the uncensored, unbiased, un-"aligned" results available to all for a fair price is compensation enough, I think. That's what we should be pushing for.

Whether demon or genie, any notion of putting this tech back in the bottle is a non-starter. As is turning it into a giant money grab for the copyright industry.

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#129

Post by webmaven »

trealira wrote: post #107
reverius42 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every word of this sentence, for instance, has a correct spelling and grammatical rules as to where the words and punctuation go. As a linguistic descriptivist, hahahahahahahaha.

Are you saying that the way people naturally speak follows no rules whatsoever? Linguistic descriptivism just means that, rather than hold up an ideal of a language and prescribe variants as wrong or right, linguists should simply describe the language based on its use. That doesn't mean that the language (or variants of it) has no grammatical rules. It just means that, rather than holding up some prestige variety as…

I think the claim isn't that "language has no rules" but rather that the "rules" are far more context dependent and subject to change over time than would ordinarily be implied by the use of the word "rules".

Even at the lowest level of phonemes to morphemes, accents introduce a huge amount of variety, and it doesn't really get more orderly as you increase the level of abstraction.

Re: Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source

#130

Post by CatWChainsaw »

paul_funyun wrote: post #38
barbariangrunge wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Copyrighted material, sexual content, political opinions, throw it all in and release it please! Why copyrighted material? Could we stop celebrating how tech is going to steal everyone's copyrighted works in a massive effort to replace the artists who made it? Why does everyone here hate artists so much? Do they not deserve any rights over their IP, eg, the right to say no when someone wants to make derivative work…

I can't imagine what goes through the head of someone who thinks they don't have the right to say no. They don't have the right to be listened to or the right to use state power to enforce a colloquial notion of IP and rights with no basis in law or fact, but they surely have the right to say "No!" In all seriousness, they're afraid because they aren't very pleasant. AI will write things people will like and enjoy he…

I want to see the world where this happens, where everything that made life enjoyable is corporatized, standardized, optimized, one-dimensionalized. Since it will happen over the course of your lifetime, you'll get to see it happen - as things that were fulfilling cease to be, an ennui you can't escape sets in because you built every wall of your cage one by one, and all you can do is regret. And then the Black Mirror helmet comes off your head, everyone else points and laughs at you, and then puts the helmet back on.
Post reply on HN