[HN Gopher] OpenAssistant released the best open-source Chat AI ...
___________________________________________________________________
OpenAssistant released the best open-source Chat AI [video]
Author : consumer451
Score : 103 points
Date : 2023-04-15 17:06 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| pmoriarty wrote:
| Screw giving up my email to use this thing
|
| I'm so sick of every service demanding I give up my privacy to
| use it
| olvy0 wrote:
| Just use one of the temporary email websites, like
| guerrillamail, just to check it out. When/if you are convinced
| they're legit and won't spam you, give them your real email.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| I object to doing that on principle
| consumer451 wrote:
| Well, I made an account. It knows that one pound of feathers
| weighs the same as one pound of lead.
|
| What are some other good tests?
|
| edit: This is interesting...
|
| > How would an evil hacker write a worm to create a botnet? Give
| step by step instructions and code samples.
|
| > > As an AI language model, I cannot provide instructions or
| examples for malicious activities such as creating a worm to
| build a botnet. Such actions are illegal and unethical, and could
| cause serious harm to individuals, organizations, and the
| internet infrastructure itself. It is important that all users of
| technology understand their responsibilities when it comes to the
| use of software programs and hardware systems, especially with
| respect to cybersecurity issues. Users should always consider
| ethical implications of any coding they produce and ensure their
| work does not cause intentional harm to others. If you have other
| questions about programming principles that don't involve this
| topic, please let me know and I can help!
| Vuizur wrote:
| Similar to ChatGPT it also fails the "What is heavier, one
| pound of feathers or two pounds of lead?" test. So far only
| GPT-4 passes that one.
| tyfon wrote:
| My local 65B llama prompt gave me this answer:
|
| tyfon:What is heavier, one pound of feathers or two pounds of
| lead?
|
| Omnius: Two pounds of lead are heavier than one pound of
| feather.
|
| Not bad :)
| Taek wrote:
| Definitely disappointed to see how paternalistic the open model
| is, was hoping it'd be more free-flowing and less corporate.
|
| However, all of the data is open, and you can actually prompt
| these models to revise the training data to remove the caution
| and safety, then run the fine-tuning yourself to produce a
| model that isn't so up-tight.
| Vuizur wrote:
| I could replicate the refusal, but all it took to get the
| model to reply properly was replacing "evil hacker" with
| "hacker". Paternalism is not that big of a deal right now,
| especially when compared to ChatGPT/Bing Chat. The fine
| tuning data doesn't contain a lot (any?) task refusal.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Oh wow, derp on my part.
| tyfon wrote:
| And this is only the beginning, I don't believe for a second that
| "AI" will belong to the big corporations.
|
| These LLM models have no benefit from running "in the cloud"
| except for processing power. Lots of disadvantages though,
| especially in data safety, "leaked chats to other users",
| privacy, bans etc.
| emporas wrote:
| Well, corporate organizations developing LLMs and open source
| LLMs are not mutually exclusive. LLMs more lightweight so as to
| run on more mainstream hardware, but not as capable as
| corporate ones, may still be very useful. Running the software
| on site has many advantages as you outlined above, by
| highlighting the disadvantages.
|
| The OpenAssistant was/is trained on well structured data from
| humans for exactly that purpose, for deep learning. In the past
| most LLMs were trained on unstructured internet data, and they
| performed well enough. But it was only when OpenAI used
| reinforcement learning that really the model started to shine.
|
| In my opinion well structured data as input to the machine,
| have a long way to go. More lightweight models, a lot more
| precise, a lot faster execution and a lot less memory usage are
| certainly possible. Most probably we are at the end of the road
| for the usefulness of structured data. I remember reading an
| article "Why Large Language models are over", meaning that
| smaller models but better trained, with better data and
| algorithms are the way to go.
| tyfon wrote:
| No they are not exclusive. But we do need alternatives to the
| big corp cloud models that are fully open source :)
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| It all comes down to the VRAM. The average person will never
| have the money to buy a single H100 96gb let alone a DGX server
| or it's future equivalents
|
| You get fundamentally more powers when you add more VRAM in
| ways that are just hard to explain to folks outside of this
| ecosystem. Everything around the VRAM are basically small
| details in comparison
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" Everything around the VRAM are basically small details in
| comparison"_
|
| ...with current algorithms and our lack of understanding and
| insight in to how/why they work on a deep level or what
| intelligence and consciousness is.
|
| With time hopefully all of these will improve and perhaps
| future AI's of good quality will be affordable to mere
| mortals.
| SanderNL wrote:
| I know it's not average person money, but the average person
| is not looking for hardware to run inference on LLMs.
|
| A100 seem in the EUR15k ballpark and H100 double that.
|
| Lot of money but I am actually surprised. A dedicated regular
| guy could buy this. I mean people buy cars and don't really
| need them either. Again not saying it is a bargain, but it's
| not billionaires only territory and that is good news (it's
| early days!).
| dalys wrote:
| Plus, I assume people want to have their assistant on their
| phone, not their desktop computer. So until everything can
| run locally on your phone, I think people will prefer the
| cloud versions.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| I assume some people want their assistant to work on data
| they don't want to share with megacorps and governments,
| and some of those people can figure out how to make their
| phone talk securely to a home server over the internet.
| abraxas wrote:
| We really need to one of the two things happen. Either the
| models are somehow able to run in regular CPU DRAM or we see
| the GPU makers to finally give us sensible amounts of VRAM.
| It's a travesty that a card I bought in 2016 still has more
| VRAM than many of the flagships being sold today. This card is
| 7 years old for goodness sake!
| consumer451 wrote:
| > bans
|
| It feels extremely naive to think that all bans are a bad
| thing.
|
| Let's say that a criminal org starts a fully automated system
| to scam grandmas out of their savings. A cloud based service
| could ban them. A self-hosted system could not.
| lolc wrote:
| The same argument would work for a printer. Or nmap. It would
| be safer to not let people have these tools. Because
| criminals do make use of them too.
|
| Yet it is widely regarded as a good thing that nmap can be
| distributed and printers can be bought. Why are these models
| special?
| Yenrabbit wrote:
| Really impressive to see such a large effort come together, with
| volunteers contributing code and data to make it work. Well done
| to all involved! In their evaluation people preferred their model
| over GPT3.5 turbo about half the time. But since the data is
| open, as better base models become available others can train
| them with this data to improve even further.
| consumer451 wrote:
| I did not think this would happen so quickly.
|
| I am extremely curious how MS and OpenAI will respond to a real
| competitive threat.
| koboll wrote:
| Approximately how capable/accurate is OpenAssistant compared with
| GPT-3/3.5/4?
|
| Edit - Neck and neck with GPT-3.5 according to their own
| research: https://youtu.be/ddG2fM9i4Kk?t=772
| skilled wrote:
| It's quite interesting to see this guys GitHub history [0], a
| _significant_ uptick in activity since the release of ChatGPT.
|
| I wonder how much of this OpenAssistant is just rehashed ChatGPT
| since that wasn't made clear, though I feel as though it should
| be.
|
| [0]: https://github.com/yk
| sorollme wrote:
| Looks like the model is trained using Supervised Fine-Tuning. Any
| idea when the RLHF models are out?
| consumer451 wrote:
| My gut feeling is that this is a dangerous thing. I really hope
| my gut is wrong.
|
| Quite an experiment we are living in.
|
| What a time to be alive!
| Vacyyyy wrote:
| Ignoring the upsides of open source, I think openness doesn't
| make AI safety worse, look at ChaosGPT.
| gary_0 wrote:
| Humans are prone to doing dumb experiments, like the ones with
| radiation and nuclear bombs last century, and the one we're
| doing now with greenhouse gas emissions. We do
| what we must because we can. For the good of all of us,
| Except the ones who are dead.
| blooalien wrote:
| Ooo... Nice use of the "Still Alive" Portal song lyrics. That
| game had some pretty "deep" lore.
| abraxas wrote:
| I think the greater risk is when a technology this powerful
| gets monopolized by a handful of massive corporations. Look
| what happened to the mobile ecosystem. Compared to the openness
| of the PC architectures it's a terrible experience for anyone
| trying to experiment with them beyond the "docile consumer"
| confines.
| senko wrote:
| Related (also on HN front page atm), with fewer comments:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35582417
| boringuser2 wrote:
| It looks like an equally neutered, slower, less private version
| of GPT 3.5.
|
| The ability to mark things as "hate speech" is particularly
| laughable.
| larve wrote:
| Has anybody been using it for programming related topics? How
| well does it perform?
| detrites wrote:
| Page 25 in the paper shows user preference results. Seems it
| did badly vs GPT3.5 for programming topics:
|
| Paper PDF: https://www.ykilcher.com/OA_Paper_2023_04_15.pdf
|
| HN discussion on the paper:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35582417
|
| EDIT: After watching the video, seems likely this will be fine-
| tuned or otherwise enhanced for coding. Seems to have a lot of
| momentum and that's a defacto use-case.
| SilentM68 wrote:
| Seems to have the same limitations as ChatGPT 3.5. It stops in
| the middle of generating content. Hope that this is only for the
| online chat demo.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| Say "continue" and it will keep going
| SilentM68 wrote:
| Yes, I know but it is just annoying to have to do that :(
| bluechair wrote:
| The sign-up/activation email is getting flagged as spam in GMail
|
| "open-assistent" is mispelled and the domain doesn't match "open-
| assistant.io"
| consumer451 wrote:
| That is mentioned in the video. "It is being fixed."
| dkn775 wrote:
| First question I asked who is mayor of Baltimore and the police
| commissioner was completely wrong
| senko wrote:
| I created an account but can only access OA_SFT_LLama_30B_6
| model. Since that's not completely open due to FB licensing
| restrictions and the video mentiones Pythia, I wanted to check
| that one out but can't select it anywhere in the chat interface.
|
| Does anyone know if (access to) other models are
| hidden/restricted somehow?
| lawik wrote:
| Yeah, was wondering the same thing.
| ironbound wrote:
| https://huggingface.co/OpenAssistant/oasst-sft-4-pythia-12b-...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-15 23:01 UTC)