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

481–490 of 527 posts

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

#481

Post by travisjungroth »

kazinator wrote: post #465
travisjungroth wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t get the horse analogy. The horse isn’t trained to count to eight. The horse is trained to stomp continuously. The performer yells “stop” at eight. It’s a carnival trick and a form of cherry-picking. The commenter was saying that ChatGPT doesn’t have the ability to solve these problems at all and people are just choosing the randomly correct answers. I think this is obviously not true.

The purpose of the horse analogy wasn't so much to equate ChatGPT to a horse that just stomps, but the behavior of the humans around it who believe that it can count. This can be the naive trainer too, who doesn't recognize that he's subconsciously cuing the horse. He has a confirmation bias whereby he or she rejects any evidence refuting the hypothesis that the horse cannot count. There is a difference between solvi…

ChatGPT is making me realize how completely differently I see the concepts of knowledge and ability from so many people.

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

#482

Post by Salgat »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #400
Salgat wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. They knew they couldn't compete with ChatGPT (even if performance was comparable, GPT has a massive edge in marketing) so they did the next best thing. This gives Meta a massive boost both to visibility and to open source contributions that ironically no other business can legally use.

If it was deliberate then why "leak" it instead of open sourcing it?

As I mentioned in my comment, a leak means that no other company (your competition) can use it, and you get to integrate all the improvements made by other people on it back into your closed source product.

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

#483

Post by chpatrick »

smoldesu wrote: post #422
seydor wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it was difficult to run all those models. now gamers follow youtube tutorials

Name 1 way GPT-Neo was harder to run than LLaMA.

In my experience GPT-Neo never produced any useful output.

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

#484

Post by whimsicalism »

int_19h wrote: post #247
jhbadger wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that was the case before trying Vicuna. I agree that LLaMA and Alpaca are inferior to ChatGPT but I'm really not sure Vicuna is. It even (unfortunately) copies some of ChatGPT's quirks, like getting prudish when asking it to write a love scene ("It would not be appropriate for me to write...")

It's definitely inferior once you start giving it non-trivial tasks. the same goes for all instruction- and chat-tuned forks of LLaMA. Maybe that'll be different on larger model sizes; we haven't seen vicuna-30b or 65b yet. But if it really is that easy, I'd expect there to be a lot more commercial offerings on par with ChatGPT already.

Well except you can't legally offer fine-tuned LLaMA as a commercial offering like that.

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

#485

Post by anticensor »

skissane wrote: post #311
teddyh wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the model weights would be a derivative work of public domain materials, and hence also forced into the public domain from a copyright perspective. I don’t think “Public domain” means what you think it means.

Yes, the person to whom you are responding appears to be mixing up "publicly available" (made available to general public) with "public domain" (not protected by copyright). IANAL but, I think, as far as US law goes, they have the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. Unsupervised training is an automated process, and the US Copyright Office has said [0] that the product of automated processes can't be copyrighted.…

The EU and most of the world require human authorship too. The UK instead maintains the view the model's operator gets the copyright.

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

#486

Post by whimsicalism »

mirekrusin wrote: post #366
whimsicalism wrote: post #11

It appears there is this genre of articles pretending that LLAMA or its RL-HF tuned variants are somehow even close to an alternative to ChatGPT. Spending more than a few moments interacting even with the larger instruct-tuned variants of these models quickly dispels that idea. Why do these takes around open-source AI remain so popular? What is the driving force?

You can't get clearance for company work to use those closed models (due to leaking of confidential data).

Oh, but you can get clearance for using pirated models against license? I want to work at your employer!

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

#487

Post by yunohn »

Gigachad wrote: post #478
yunohn wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of using a computer/AI is enable predictable and/or factual output. It’s not really a useful gotcha to say that “most humans would get this wrong”…

There is no "point" it's just a technology. My point was that the OP question was actually very difficult to the point many people could not handle it. So the fact an AI can not is not entirely surprising.

Computers can perform prime factorisation of incredibly large numbers - I’m not aware of any human that can do that. Does that make my point clearer?

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

#488

Post by yieldcrv »

int_19h wrote: post #250
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

Are they going after copies of LLaMA, or after LLaMA derivatives specifically?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35287733

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

#489

Post by avereveard »

Tostino wrote: post #444
avereveard wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the smaller models you may want to split the task in smaller chunk either in parallel one value at a time or in sequence like extract the attributes, then take the output and ask to format it into a json

In relation to this, when using GPT4, I have added the addendum to my prompts: "This seems like a lot of work, please split the work into two chunks, and let's start on the first chunk now." It will generally segment the problem in some logical way and work just fine, with vastly improved reasoning abilities due to not trying to do as much at once.

Ah, clever, thanks for sharing.

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

#490

Post by fl7305 »

jarek83 wrote: post #477
fl7305 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Or to put it differently: Is "GPT-4 is just a parrot" a falsifiable claim? If so, what does the test look like that would falsify it?

I guess debugability will be its most desired feature soon. Let's see what copyrights will do with it.

What do "debuggability" or "copyrights" have to do with:

Is "GPT-4 is just a parrot" a falsifiable claim?

If so, what does the test look like that would falsify it?

Can you think of questions to test GPT-4s ability to reason that 90% of human 12-year olds will answer correctly, but where GPT-4 constantly struggles?

Post reply on HN