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

The LLama Effect: Leak Sparked a Series of Open Source Alternatives to ChatGPT

thesequence.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 527 posts

Re: The LLama Effect: Leak Sparked a Series of Open Source Alternatives to ChatGPT

#191

Post by yieldcrv »

greyface- wrote: post #125
yieldcrv wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because publicly visible actions are worse for them People have gotten DMCA takedown requests from them over Llama repositories

If they were interested in limiting distribution, saying essentially "go ahead and seed this torrent more" is worse for them than doing nothing.

I’ve actually beat the streisand effect before by not responding.

The crowd gets bored and my DMCA requests flurry out a month later and all evidence disappears, individuals that might notice dont have the crowd to amplify that they noticed.

You can call that “tacit consent” if you want. But streisand removes all leverage.

Re: The LLama Effect: Leak Sparked a Series of Open Source Alternatives to ChatGPT

#192

Post by jhbadger »

sp332 wrote: post #175
jhbadger wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that doesn't matter mow. The University of California has released Vicuna as open source. It doesn't need the Llama model to be installed at this point. Nor do you need any of Meta's code to run it either as you can use llama.cpp (not created by Meta). That's the whole point of the article. It's open source now. There's nothing Meta can do.

This is incorrect. According to the official https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat#vicuna-weights you need the original Llama weights before applying the Vicuna diff.

Seriously, you can download the Vicuna model and run it locally with llama.cpp. I've done it!

Re: The LLama Effect: Leak Sparked a Series of Open Source Alternatives to ChatGPT

#193

Post by jagrsw »

barbariangrunge wrote: post #165
greyface- wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A contributor who is also a Facebook employee and co-author of the LLaMA paper, presumably speaking in official capacity.

Why would you presume that by default? Need a quote to conclude that

It's widely presumed within faang-type-of companies that anything an employee says or does can be interpreted as an official company statement, especially by the press. As a result, many of these companies offer, often mandatory, trainings that underscore the importance of speaking carefully in public, since one's words can end up on the front page of a popular newspaper.

Although I don't know how FB rolls internally, it seems more likely than not to me, that it was ack'd by someone higher up in the organization than line engineers or managers. Someone with a permission of speaking publicly for a given area of a company - doesn't need to be CEO, more like a VP/Director maybe.

Re: The LLama Effect: Leak Sparked a Series of Open Source Alternatives to ChatGPT

#194

Post by [deleted] »

barbariangrunge wrote: post #165
greyface- wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A contributor who is also a Facebook employee and co-author of the LLaMA paper, presumably speaking in official capacity.

Why would you presume that by default? Need a quote to conclude that

[deleted]

Re: The LLama Effect: Leak Sparked a Series of Open Source Alternatives to ChatGPT

#195

Post by iamflimflam1 »

superkuh wrote: post #118

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…

GPT-4 is pretty mind blowing. It can follow very complex prompts that 3.5 struggles with.

Re: The LLama Effect: Leak Sparked a Series of Open Source Alternatives to ChatGPT

#196

Post by oezi »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #93
isoprophlex wrote: post #89

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?

I would assume so. Meta’s ML/AI team is very strong, but they probably don’t have a comparable product offering to ChatGPT ready for public use. So instead, they bought themselves some time by letting the open source community run wild with a lesser model and eat into OpenAI’s moat.

What would you think is holding back Meta and Google? Why can't they just scale up the compute they throw at the problem?

What are they tinkering on?

Re: The LLama Effect: Leak Sparked a Series of Open Source Alternatives to ChatGPT

#198

Post by 0x0000000 »

Szpadel wrote: post #152
mattmcknight wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the weights are copyrighted, running one more epoch of fine-tuning will result in different weights. At a certain point, they'd have to copyright the shapes of the weight vectors.

is uncertain, as with codding you need white room methods to prove that new code is not contaminated with patented implementation, as it might be here, so basing anything on an existing model could be also copyrighted.

Clean room implementation is not a defense against patents, it is a defense against copyright infringement.

Re: The LLama Effect: Leak Sparked a Series of Open Source Alternatives to ChatGPT

#199

Post by hutzlibu »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #190
jonplackett wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between 3.5 and 4 is gigantic even in my fairly limited experience. I gave them both some common sense tests and this one stuck out to me. Q: A glass door has ‘push’ written on it in mirror writing. Should you push or pull it GPT-3.5: If the word "push" is written in mirror writing on a glass door, you should push the door to open it GPT-4: Since the word "push" is written in mirror writing, it suggest…

Wait, how does GPT-4 even... Does it benefit from its visual attention, or is it a case of "the question wasn't in GPT-3's training set but it was in GPT-4's"?

I would suspect, that this is one of the manual fine tuned questions.

Meaning in before versions people used this question to show flaws and now this specific flaw is fixed.

Otherwise it would be indeed reasoning in my understanding.

Re: The LLama Effect: Leak Sparked a Series of Open Source Alternatives to ChatGPT

#200

Post by Method-X »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #190
jonplackett wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between 3.5 and 4 is gigantic even in my fairly limited experience. I gave them both some common sense tests and this one stuck out to me. Q: A glass door has ‘push’ written on it in mirror writing. Should you push or pull it GPT-3.5: If the word "push" is written in mirror writing on a glass door, you should push the door to open it GPT-4: Since the word "push" is written in mirror writing, it suggest…

Wait, how does GPT-4 even... Does it benefit from its visual attention, or is it a case of "the question wasn't in GPT-3's training set but it was in GPT-4's"?

It has the ability to reason. It may not be conscious, but it is intelligent.
Post reply on HN