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

ChatGPT for Teams

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 453 posts

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#361

Post by Kerbonut »

benreesman wrote: post #248
Smerity wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've done a great explanation expansion except I believe it's ALiBi ("Attention with Linear Biases Enables Input Length Extrapolation"), a method of positional encoding (i.e. telling the Transformer model how much to weight a distant token when computing the current output token). This has been used on various other LLMs[2]. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.12409 [2]: n.b. Ofir Press is co-creator of ALiBi h…

This is indeed what I was referring to and along with RoPE and related techniques is a sort of "meta-attention" in which a cost-effective scalar pointwise calculation can hint the heavyweight attention mechanism with super-linear returns in practical use cases. In more intuitive terms, your bog-standard transformer overdoes it in terms of considering all context equally in the final prediction, and we historically us…

imo mistral-medium is worse than mixtral. Do you have API access?

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#362

Post by Zambyte »

ics wrote: post #340
Zambyte wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would change if they knew?

Too much discussion about the Holy Roman Empire over dinner? People talk to get things of their mind sometimes, not the infinite pursuit of conversation.

My point was not that they should talk about the Holy Roman Empire with their family, but that they shouldn't share information with strangers that they wouldn't share with their family.

If you don't want your family to know something, you shouldn't tell it to OpenAI either.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#363

Post by Zambyte »

dev_tty01 wrote: post #360
Zambyte wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would change if they knew?

Why the questions? It is no one else's business why they want that level of privacy. Is it your intent to convince them that they don't need privacy?

> Is it your intent to convince them that they don't need privacy?

Quite the opposite actually. My intent is to shed light on the fact that sharing information with OpenAI is not private. And you should not do that with information that you wouldn't even share with people you trust.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#364

Post by milesskorpen »

krzyk wrote: post #345
px43 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a custom GPT for telling my 3 year old bedtime stories. It's super cute to listen to the two of them collaborate back and forth where my kid will add new characters (friends from school, or stuffed animals) and new wacky twists to their adventures, and the storyteller GPT will come up with a new revised version. It would be pretty rad if she could just have the app on her tablet with a family plan. She doesn't…

Oh, how does your 3 year old interact with GPT? BTW. I read once some person made automated generation of bed time stories (with childrens as the main characters) for his children using open AI API and speakers - I was quite amazed (not a thing I would do, but nice usage for gpt).

There's pretty good voice input for chat gpt built into the iOS app.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#365

Post by dbuxton »

icelancer wrote: post #89
benreesman wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that modern quantitative approaches to LLM evaluation have been effectively co-designed with the rise of OpenAI, and folks like Ravenwolf routinely disagree with the leaderboards. There's also very little if any credible literature on what constitutes statistically significant on MMLU or whatever. There's such a massive vested interest from so many parties (the YC ecosystem is invested in Sam, MSFT is in…

> It's easy and cheap to just try both these days, don't take my word for which one is better. I literally use 8x-7b on my on-prem GPU cluster and have several fine tunes of 7b (which I said in the previous post). I've used mistral-medium. GPT-4-turbo is better than them all on all benchmarks, human preference, and anything that isn't biased vibes. My opinion - such that it is - is that GPT-4-turbo is by far the best…

Agree with this. I would say that the rate of progress from Mistral is very encouraging though in terms of having multiple plausible contenders for the crown.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#366

Post by eganist »

Zambyte wrote: post #363
dev_tty01 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the questions? It is no one else's business why they want that level of privacy. Is it your intent to convince them that they don't need privacy?

> Is it your intent to convince them that they don't need privacy? Quite the opposite actually. My intent is to shed light on the fact that sharing information with OpenAI is not private. And you should not do that with information that you wouldn't even share with people you trust.

> Quite the opposite actually. My intent is to shed light on the fact that sharing information with OpenAI is not private. And you should not do that with information that you wouldn't even share with people you trust.

I'm not OP, but I think you're missing the point.

Privacy and trust isn't really a 1D gradient, it's probably planar or even spatial if anything.

Personally I'd be more willing to trust OpenAI with certain conversations because the blowback if it leaves their control is different than if I have that same conversation with my best friend and it leaves my best friend's control. The same premise underlies how patients can choose who to disclose their own health matters to, or choose who their providers can disclose to.

Same reason behind why someone may be willing to post a relationship situation to r/relationship_advice and yet not talk about the same thing with family and friends.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#367

Post by jaaaisuujudjdn »

wholinator2 wrote: post #234
ddano wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a weird trend.

The phone only auto capitalizes the first letter of a sentence. If you end up changing it sometimes it doesn't get replaced with a capital. If you get frustrated with autocorrect features, often modern phones don't allow you to select which features to turn off and you're forced to turn everything off, at least that's how it was during the time i learned to type with the phone. I'm not gen z but I'd say it has a lot…

[dead]

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#368

Post by emsign »

tedsanders wrote: post #61
ta988 wrote: post #42

A major change is that you cannot opt out from having your conversations used for training unless you are usig a team account which is pretty costly for a single person.

According to this, you can still opt out of training, but you have to turn off history: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7730893-data-controls-fa...

Sneaky buggers

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#369

Post by eganist »

Zambyte wrote: post #362
ics wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too much discussion about the Holy Roman Empire over dinner? People talk to get things of their mind sometimes, not the infinite pursuit of conversation.

My point was not that they should talk about the Holy Roman Empire with their family, but that they shouldn't share information with strangers that they wouldn't share with their family. If you don't want your family to know something, you shouldn't tell it to OpenAI either.

> If you don't want your family to know something, you shouldn't tell it to OpenAI either.

Yeah, I think this is an over reduction of personal privacy models, but can you tell me why you believe this?

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#370

Post by lhl »

benreesman wrote: post #248
Smerity wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've done a great explanation expansion except I believe it's ALiBi ("Attention with Linear Biases Enables Input Length Extrapolation"), a method of positional encoding (i.e. telling the Transformer model how much to weight a distant token when computing the current output token). This has been used on various other LLMs[2]. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.12409 [2]: n.b. Ofir Press is co-creator of ALiBi h…

This is indeed what I was referring to and along with RoPE and related techniques is a sort of "meta-attention" in which a cost-effective scalar pointwise calculation can hint the heavyweight attention mechanism with super-linear returns in practical use cases. In more intuitive terms, your bog-standard transformer overdoes it in terms of considering all context equally in the final prediction, and we historically us…

My understanding is that Mistral uses a regular 4K RoPE that is "extends" the window size with SWA. This is based on looking at the results of Nous Research's Yarn-Mistral extension: https://huggingface.co/NousResearch/Yarn-Mistral-7b-128k and Self-Extend, both of which only apply to RoPE models.

There are quite a few recent attention extension techniques recently published:

* Activation Beacons - up to 100X context length extension in as little as 72 A800 hours https://huggingface.co/papers/2401.03462

* Self-Extend - a no-training RoPE modification that can give "free" context extension with 100% passkey retrieval (works w/ SWA as well) https://huggingface.co/papers/2401.01325

* DistAttention/DistKV-LLM - KV cache segmentation for 2-19X context length at runtime https://huggingface.co/papers/2401.02669

* YaRN - aforementioned efficient RoPE extension https://huggingface.co/papers/2309.00071

You could imagine combining a few of these together to basically "solve" the context issue while largely training for shorter context length.

There are of course some exciting new alternative architectures, notably Mamba https://huggingface.co/papers/2312.00752 and Megabyte https://huggingface.co/papers/2305.07185 that can efficiently process up to 1M tokens...

Post reply on HN