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

Hello OLMo: A truly open LLM

blog.allenai.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Hello OLMo: A truly open LLM

#61

Post by Chris2048 »

vjeux wrote: post #25

If I read the license correctly, it seems that if you want to use the LLM, you need to tell the authors what you are doing with it. Am I reading this correctly? https://allenai.org/licenses/impact-mr “Derivative Impact Reports. AI2 seeks to encourage transparency around Derivatives through the use of Derivative Impact Reports, available here. Before releasing a Model Derivative or Data Derivative, You will share with…

> if You initiate or participate in any lawsuit or other legal action ... this MR Agreement will terminate immediately

Is this legal? Restricting legal options by making an agreement dependant on it?

Re: Hello OLMo: A truly open LLM

#65

Post by gadflyinyoureye »

egKYzyXeIL wrote: post #62
arcza wrote: post #60

sToP bLOgGinG wITh Medium!

Why shouldn't people use Medium? I'm probably out of the loop.

They often require log in to see the whole article. Later they cap your access to articles to N per some period of time. The only way around that is to purchase a subscription. Given the weak offering of Medium, it’s seldom worth the $/month cost of a subscription for the few jewels that might appear.

Re: Hello OLMo: A truly open LLM

#67

Post by ben_w »

23B1 wrote: post #31
simonw wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely absolutely packed with unlicensed, copyrighted data. Books3 is the most notable example - nearly 200,000 pirated ebooks - but a lot of the rest of it is (unlicensed) scraped web data. The legal questions over whether this is a problem are currently still unresolved. Many people are also bothered by the ethical implications, which is a separate issue from the legal questions.

Ironic that even our everyday governance has little 'Alignment' between ethics and law.

We wouldn't need lawyers if all the rules could be expressed as "be ethical".

Re: Hello OLMo: A truly open LLM

#68

Post by simonw »

michaelt wrote: post #44
simonw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pet peeve: Google's Gemini LLM model was not to blame for the image generation weirdness. That would be like blaming DALL-E weirdness on GPT-4. Unfortunately, Google marketing decided to slap the "Gemini" brand on both the end-user interface used to interact with the model AND the actual model itself, hence people constantly calling out Gemini-the-model for weird decisions made as part of Gemini-the-user-interface.

> That would be like blaming DALL-E weirdness on GPT-4. Actually when you trigger DALL-E through GPT-4 (i.e. with the LLM generating the prompt to give the diffusion model then returning the resulting image to the user) the LLM's system instructions [1] say "7. Diversify depictions of ALL images with people to always include always DESCENT and GENDER for EACH person using direct terms." and a bunch of stuff along tho…

Yeah, I wrote about that last year: https://simonwillison.net/2023/Oct/26/add-a-walrus/#diversif...

Again, that's not a GPT-4 thing: that's a ChatGPT interface running GPT-4 with DALL-E as a tool thing.

Re: Hello OLMo: A truly open LLM

#69

Post by simonw »

espadrine wrote: post #58
simonw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pet peeve: Google's Gemini LLM model was not to blame for the image generation weirdness. That would be like blaming DALL-E weirdness on GPT-4. Unfortunately, Google marketing decided to slap the "Gemini" brand on both the end-user interface used to interact with the model AND the actual model itself, hence people constantly calling out Gemini-the-model for weird decisions made as part of Gemini-the-user-interface.

> Google's Gemini LLM model was not to blame for the image generation weirdness. That would be like blaming DALL-E weirdness on GPT-4. The way I read the Gemini technical report, it seemed like, unlike GPT-4 vs DALL-E, Gemini was pretrained with multimodal outputs. Is that not the case?

Is that right? I didn't think Gemini was generating images directly, I assumed it was using a separate image generation tool.

The paper here https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.05530.pdf has a model card for Gemini 1.5 Pro that says:

    Output(s): Generated text in response to the input
    (e.g., an answer to the question, a summary of
    multiple documents, comparing documents/videos).

Re: Hello OLMo: A truly open LLM

#70

Post by simonw »

yk wrote: post #33
simonw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pet peeve: Google's Gemini LLM model was not to blame for the image generation weirdness. That would be like blaming DALL-E weirdness on GPT-4. Unfortunately, Google marketing decided to slap the "Gemini" brand on both the end-user interface used to interact with the model AND the actual model itself, hence people constantly calling out Gemini-the-model for weird decisions made as part of Gemini-the-user-interface.

Did anybody manage to get the entire prompt out of gemini, or what are you basing your claim on?

That's my point. The system prompt isn't part of the model - it's part of the UI system that wraps the model.
Post reply on HN