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

The Llama 4 herd

ai.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 695 posts

Re: The Llama 4 herd

#491

Post by vitorgrs »

knowriju wrote: post #468
mdp2021 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I ask an LLM how old the Earth is, and it replies ~4.5 billion years old It will have to reply "According to Clair Patterson and further research, the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old". Or some other form that points to the source somewhere.

Pretty sad that the rest of the world needs to pay for the extra tokens because of non-scientific american bias. This is also possibly a big point why countries/regions want sovereign LLMs which will propagate regional biases only.

I always like to ask these models who invented the airplanes, because a few countries have their own inventor... So in my opinion, it's a good way to check.

Re: The Llama 4 herd

#492

Post by mdp2021 »

vitorgrs wrote: post #491
knowriju wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sad that the rest of the world needs to pay for the extra tokens because of non-scientific american bias. This is also possibly a big point why countries/regions want sovereign LLMs which will propagate regional biases only.

I always like to ask these models who invented the airplanes, because a few countries have their own inventor... So in my opinion, it's a good way to check.

Very good. If the LLM has to express an opinion, it will have to be its own opinion (after the implementation of intelligence and judgement) - otherwise, it has to explicit the foundations of its statements (certainly not be the "hearsay machine" we have seen).

Re: The Llama 4 herd

#493

Post by lostmsu »

reissbaker wrote: post #346
kristopolous wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

17B puts it beyond the reach of a 4090 ... anybody do 4 bit quant on it yet?

Oh, it'll never run on a 4090. 17B is the active parameter count, not the total param count (and "active" doesn't mean you can slice just those params out and put them on the GPU — which parameters are active constantly changes, even per-token. "Active" just means you get tokens faster than a dense model). It's 109B total parameters, so you'd need at least 54.5GB VRAM just for the weights alone. A Framework Desktop,…

Sounds runnable on 2x5090 presumably for $4k if back in stock.

Re: The Llama 4 herd

#494

Post by concordDance »

paxys wrote: post #230
vessenes wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, it’s been true from the beginning vis-a-vis US political science theory. That is, if you deliver something like https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/quiz/political-typology... To models from GPT-3 on you get highly “liberal” per Pew’s designations. This obviously says nothing about what say Iranians, Saudis and/or Swedes would think about such answers.

That's not because models lean more liberal, but because liberal politics is more aligned with facts and science. Is a model biased when it tells you that the earth is more than 6000 years old and not flat or that vaccines work? Not everything needs a "neutral" answer.

> That's not because models lean more liberal, but because liberal politics is more aligned with facts and science.

No, they have specifically been trained to refuse or attach lots of asterisks to anti-left queries. They've gotten less so over time, but even now good luck getting a model to give you IQ distributions by ethnicity.

Re: The Llama 4 herd

#495

Post by concordDance »

ckrapu wrote: post #68

"It’s well-known that all leading LLMs have had issues with bias—specifically, they historically have leaned left when it comes to debated political and social topics. This is due to the types of training data available on the internet." Perhaps. Or, maybe, "leaning left" by the standards of Zuck et al. is more in alignment with the global population. It's a simpler explanation.

> Or, maybe, "leaning left" by the standards of Zuck et al. is more in alignment with the global population.

The global population would be considered far-right by american standards. Particularly on LGBTQ matters and racism.

Re: The Llama 4 herd

#496

Post by awestroke »

mdp2021 wrote: post #485
knowriju wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sad that the rest of the world needs to pay for the extra tokens because of non-scientific american bias. This is also possibly a big point why countries/regions want sovereign LLMs which will propagate regional biases only.

It's not a matter of «extra tokens»: it's that the fact, the "summary after the protocols", is what I wrote. It is the correct answer. It's what you should expect from a lucid speaker.

No. That disclaimer implies that there are other likely answers. The age of the earth is completely settled, and has been for a long time. Facts don't care about your feelings.

Re: The Llama 4 herd

#497

Post by flanked-evergl »

EasyMark wrote: post #400
tensor wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me crazy, but I don't want an AI that bases its reasoning on politics. I want one that is primarily scientific driven, and if I ask it political questions it should give me representative answers. E.g. "The majority view in [country] is [blah] with the minority view being [bleh]." I have no interest in "all sides are equal" answers because I don't believe all information is equally informative nor equally true.

But if you don't incorporate some moral guidelines, I think if an AI is left to strictly decide what is best to happen to humans it will logically conclude that there needs to be a lot less of us or none of us left, without some bias tossed in there for humanistic concerns. The universe doesn't "care" if humans exist or not, but our impact on the planet is a huge negative if one creature's existence is as important a…

Based on whose morals?

Re: The Llama 4 herd

#498

Post by concordDance »

hijodelsol wrote: post #488
martin82 wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not. Right leaning opinions are heavily censored and shunned in all major publishing platforms that bots can scrape. For example, before Trump, if you contested the utterly normal common sense and scientifically sound idea that a trans woman is still a man, you would be banned - therefore, people with common sense will simply disengage, self-censor and get on with life.

Maybe because that position is both scientifically and morally unsound and if held strongly will lead to dehumanization and hate, attributes we should prevent any LLM from having.

That particular debate is often a semantics debate, so it isn't in the domain of science at all.

The main way I can think of off-hand to try and make it scientific is to ask about correlational clusters. And then you get way more than two genders, but you definitely get some clusters that contain both transwomen and men (e.g. if I hear a video game speed runner or open source software passion projecf maker using she/her pronouns they're trans more often than not).

Re: The Llama 4 herd

#499

Post by mdp2021 »

awestroke wrote: post #496
mdp2021 wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a matter of «extra tokens»: it's that the fact, the "summary after the protocols", is what I wrote. It is the correct answer. It's what you should expect from a lucid speaker.

No. That disclaimer implies that there are other likely answers. The age of the earth is completely settled, and has been for a long time. Facts don't care about your feelings.

You misunderstand it completely, as it is not a matter of feelings. And it is not a disclaimer (which you apparently felt as a disclaimer).

It is a matter of facts. The facts are, that that computation was performed by Patterson and refined by others. This is, as said, what a good reasoner will tell you.

> implies that there

Even if there had never been other attempts to answer that question, the "facts"¹ remains as stated: Patterson computed, followers refined. Without those specifications, the machine will be a "dumb believer" - a "minor". We will not ask for the machine's opinion until it will be intelligent. And when it will be intelligent, it will speak as I said.

> completely settled

Proper science does not work the way you seem to think it work.

--

¹(And I mean "facts" the way I used it, not the way you used it. I meant "facts recorded as objective" - you meant "information you accepted to believe", which is of course very far from facts and may happen to be adherent to the state of things only by coincidence.)

Re: The Llama 4 herd

#500

Post by Auracle »

paxys wrote: post #230
vessenes wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, it’s been true from the beginning vis-a-vis US political science theory. That is, if you deliver something like https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/quiz/political-typology... To models from GPT-3 on you get highly “liberal” per Pew’s designations. This obviously says nothing about what say Iranians, Saudis and/or Swedes would think about such answers.

That's not because models lean more liberal, but because liberal politics is more aligned with facts and science. Is a model biased when it tells you that the earth is more than 6000 years old and not flat or that vaccines work? Not everything needs a "neutral" answer.

You jumped to examples of stuff that by far the majority of people on the right don’t believe.

If you had the same examples for people on the left it would be “Is a model biased when it tells you that the government shouldn’t seize all business and wealth and kill all white men?”

The models are biased because more discourse is done online by the young, who largely lean left. Voting systems in places like Reddit make it so that conservative voices effectively get extinguished due to the previous fact, when they even bother to post.

Post reply on HN