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

Launch Lamini: The LLM Engine for Rapidly Customizing Models as Good as ChatGPT

lamini.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–75 of 75 posts

Re: Launch Lamini: The LLM Engine for Rapidly Customizing Models as Good as ChatGPT

#71

Post by two_in_one »

ksaj wrote: post #45
charcircuit wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chat GPT does have counting logic. The math model is encoded inside of the language model.

This needs citation. These are not the same things. It will get numerical references right if it has sources used in the model, but it isn't doing any numerical calculations.

This need citation :) It does numerical calculations, at least in GPT-4 mode, tested. It can do simple arithmetic, and even has sort of 'imagination', or impression of it. I asked it to imagine a room with 4 colored balls at the corners. Then asked about the view angles between some pairs of balls as if looking from the center of the room, and from other balls. It gave the answers with explanations.

This doesn't mean it's always correct, or can be trusted without verification.

Re: Launch Lamini: The LLM Engine for Rapidly Customizing Models as Good as ChatGPT

#72

Post by cassianoleal »

spdustin wrote: post #66
cassianoleal wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the last list, the only word that does not comply with the constraints (having 3 'e's) is "Demeanor", which has only 2. Not great but also not as horrible as you make it sound.

Nevertheless, it got 2 out of 7 wrong, not just one.

"Nevertheless" does have 3 'e's. In fact, it even has one more than 3. So does "precedence".

It was never specified "exactly 3".

Re: Launch Lamini: The LLM Engine for Rapidly Customizing Models as Good as ChatGPT

#73

Post by gdiamos »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #67
iguana wrote: post #23

Trivial examples show that this isn't nearly as good as ChatGPT. The headline should be changed.

It took Open.ai 10 years of fine tuning, can’t expect things to work as well in day 1.

I like blog post title.

Introducing Lamini, the LLM Engine for Rapidly Customizing Models

Obviously it still takes a huge amount of work to customize a model to be as good as GPT4 or ChatGPT, that’s exactly why we are building Lamini.

To give developers tools to make it easier.

Hopefully it is clear that it will take more work than 1 day.

Re: Launch Lamini: The LLM Engine for Rapidly Customizing Models as Good as ChatGPT

#74

Post by kevviiinn »

brookst wrote: post #10
primordialsoup wrote: post #8

Congrats! I went to your demo and asked for words that end in agi. This is what I got: -- agi, agi, agi, agi, agi, agi, agi These are some of the words that end in agi. You can also use the word agi in a sentence. For example, "I am going to the grocery store to get some agi." These are some of words that end in agi. These are some words that end in agi. maximize, maximize, maximize, maximize, maximize, maximize, max…

It's a fair criticism, and ChatGPT does better, but this isn't a great test of model quality. All LLMS that rely on tokenization struggle with being introspective on language. Try asking chatGPT to count how many e's are in a sentence, or to list all words that start with "to" and end wide "de". I haven't heard anyone describe the phenomenon clearly, but I expect it is a challenge with reasoning over both intent of t…

GPT-4 did just fine when I asked it to name words that end in agi so I don't think your argument holds

Re: Launch Lamini: The LLM Engine for Rapidly Customizing Models as Good as ChatGPT

#75

Post by vidarh »

avereveard wrote: post #68
vidarh wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get useful results out of a whole lot of them as long as you actually prompt them in a way suitable for the models. The point I made originally was that if you just feed them an ambiguous question, then sure, you will get extremely variable and mostly useless results out. Ironically, And I mentioned ChatGPT because from context of your comments here it was unclear on first read-through what you meant. Maybe c…

you're welcome to provide examples to prove your points.

I have nothing to gain from spending time testing models for you because whatever I pick will just seem like cherry picking to you, and it doesn't matter to me whether or not you agree on the usability of these models. They work for me, and that's all that matters to me. Try a a few completions instead of a question. Or don't
Post reply on HN