[HN Gopher] Hugging Face Releases Agents
___________________________________________________________________
Hugging Face Releases Agents
Author : mach1ne
Score : 158 points
Date : 2023-05-10 16:33 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (huggingface.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (huggingface.co)
| macrolime wrote:
| How does this compare to langchain agents?
| IAmStoxe wrote:
| This seems to be an interpretation similar to that of langchain.
| nico wrote:
| They also released today StarChat, their code model fine tuned as
| an assistant
|
| Might be good to try with CodeGPT, AutoGPT or BabyAGI
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Kinda what people are asking for, I mean people are really
| attracted to "describe a task" as opposed to "create a training
| set".
| anton5mith2 wrote:
| Could use LocalAI to get around this: "The openAI models perform
| better (but require you to have an openAI API key, so cannot be
| used for free);"
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/12w4p2f/localai...
| minimaxir wrote:
| From the documentation, HF Agents are much better explained than
| LangChain but not easier to use, and due to multimodality it may
| actually be more arcane to use.
| senko wrote:
| I've been thinking lately of the two tiered reasoner + tools
| architecture inspired by LangChain, simonw's writing[0] and this
| is right along those lines.
|
| We're trying too hard to have one model do it all. If we
| coordinate multiple models + other tools (ala ReAct pattern) we
| could make the systems more resistant to prompt injection (and
| possibly other) attacks and leverage their respective strengths
| and weaknesses.
|
| I'm a bit wary of tool invocation via python code instead of
| prompting the "reasoning" LLM to teach it about the special
| commands it can invoke. Python's a good crutch because LLMs know
| it reasonably well (I use a similar trick in my project, but I
| parse the resulting AST instead of running the untrusted code) so
| it's simpler to prompt them.
|
| In a few iterations I expect to see LLMs fine tuned to know about
| the standard toolset at their disposal (eg. huggingface default
| tools) and further refinement of the two-tiered pattern.
|
| [0] https://simonwillison.net/2023/Apr/25/dual-llm-pattern/
| piloto_ciego wrote:
| I've been thinking this way too.
|
| Our brains have different areas with different functions... so
| like, why wouldn't a good AI too?
|
| Maybe an LLM for an internal monologue, maybe two or three to
| debate each other realistically, then a computer vision model
| to process visual input...
| abidlabs wrote:
| Follow up Guide that explains how to create your own tools:
| https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/custom_tools
| NumberWangMan wrote:
| I'm not 100% sure that AGI is guaranteed to end humanity like
| Yudkowsky, but if that's the course we're on, seeing news like
| this is depressing. Can anyone legitimately argue that LLMs are
| safe because they don't have agency, when we just straight up
| give them agency? I know current-generation LLMs aren't really
| dangerous -- but is this not likely to happen over and over again
| as our machine intelligences get smarter and smarter? _someone_
| is going to give them the ability to affect the world. They won
| 't even have to try to "get out of the box", because it'll have 2
| sides missing.
|
| I'm getting more and more on board with "shut it all down" being
| the only course of action, because it seems like humanity needs
| all the safety margin we can get, to account for the ease at
| which anyone can deploy stuff like this. It's not clear alignment
| of a super-intelligence is even a solvable problem.
| robocat wrote:
| > "shut it all down" being the only course of action
|
| And how would we "shut it all down" in other countries? War?
| Economic sanctions? Authoritarian policing of foreign states?
| Enforce worldwide limits on the power of GPUs and computers?
| lumenwrites wrote:
| All of the above (if necessary):
|
| https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oM9pEezyCb4dCsuKq/pausing-
| ai...
|
| Basically, the idea is that countries sign the agreement to
| stop the large training runs, and, if necessary, be willing
| to use conventional strikes on AI-training datacenters in the
| countries that refuse. Hopefully it doesn't come to that,
| hopefully it just becomes the fact of international politics
| that you can't build large AI-training datacenters anymore.
| If some country decides to start a war over this - the
| argument is that wars at least have some survivors, and an
| unaligned AI won't have any.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| What's interesting to me is that it sounds "radical" but on
| the other hand, it's probably not much more radical than
| going to war with a country over weapons of mass
| destruction which don't exist, or to take oil.
|
| All things the USA has already done.
| lhnz wrote:
| The argument that this is necessary isn't close to being
| convincing enough for governments to consider following
| through with such a drastic cause of action.
|
| And, the "AI-might-end-up-killing-everyone" community
| doesn't seem to be able to see this through other people's
| eyes in order to make an argument for this without
| belittling the other perspective.
|
| If other people change their minds, it probably won't be
| through persuasion but from catastrophe.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Why do unaligned AI not have any survivors?
| lumenwrites wrote:
| Because humans aren't powerful enough to completely
| exterminate each other (even a nuclear war wouldn't kill
| literally everyone in the world), but an unaligned AI, in
| the worst case scenario, could just kill everybody (to
| eliminate humans as a threat, or to use the atoms we're
| made out of for something else, or just as a side effect
| of doing whatever it actually wants to do). It could be
| powerful enough to do that, and have no reason not to.
| zzzzzzzza wrote:
| my pov:
|
| orthogonality is almost perfectly wrong; ethics&planning
| ability is highly correlated with intelligence, one of if not
| our greatest sin is the inability to predict the consequences
| of our actions
|
| "terminal goals" is also probably very wrong
|
| the expected value of the singularity is very high. In the
| grand scheme of things, the chance that humanity will wipe
| ourselves out before we can realize it is much more important
| than the chance the singularity will wipe us out.
|
| feel free to try and change my mind, because we are very much
| not aligned.
| JohnPrine wrote:
| Can you explain your understanding of the orthogonality
| thesis? I don't think the ability of intelligent agents to
| plan conflicts with it
| NumberWangMan wrote:
| orthogonality is almost perfectly wrong; ethics&planning
| ability is highly correlated with intelligence
|
| I'm guessing you're a very nice person. There have been a lot
| of smart people in history who gained power and did very,
| very nasty things. If you're nice, being smarter means being
| better at being nice. If you're not, it means being better at
| doing whatever not-nice things you want to do.
|
| And we're just talking about humans vs humans here. From the
| point of view of, say, chickens, I don't think they'd rate
| the smarter people who invented factory farming as nicer than
| the simple farmers who used to raise 10 birds in a coop.
|
| I mean, if you exclude AGI, there are _some_ ways that humans
| can wipe ourselves out, but I feel like we 're identifying
| the big existential risks early enough to handle them.
| Intelligence that isn't human is the real danger.
| chaos_emergent wrote:
| predicated on intelligence ~ ethics&planning, I think this is
| the first argument against AI doomsday that I agree with.
|
| Questioning the premise tho - what do you define as
| intelligence? Machines can outperform humans at specific
| tasks, yet those same machines don't have a greater degree of
| ethics, even if constrained to their domain (i.e., a vision
| network may be able to draw bounding boxes more accurately
| than a human, but that doesn't say anything about its ability
| to align with more ethical values). Which makes me believe
| that your definition of intelligence has nothing to do with
| superseding humans on cognitive metrics.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| There are plenty of examples of very intelligent individuals
| which used it for evil.
|
| For example the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohamed Atta:
|
| > "His acquaintances from . . . [Technische Universitat
| Hamburg-Harburg] still cannot reconcile him as a killer, but
| in hindsight the raw ingredients of his personality suggest
| some clues. He was meticulous, disciplined and highly
| intelligent" (Yardley, 2001).
| nullsense wrote:
| I've seen this argument before and found it wanting. Hitler
| didn't ultimately succeed, but he sure as heck got pretty far
| with his plans. So, if there are some entities in the AGI
| population that eventually get the idea to try it, that's
| likely all that matters, and not what any average of the
| population is.
|
| An NGI started WW2, so why wouldn't an AGI start WW3?
|
| "Demonstrably unfriendly natural intelligence seeks to build
| provably friendly artificial intelligence"
| nullsense wrote:
| >It's not clear alignment of a super-intelligence is even a
| solvable problem.
|
| More to the point it's clear from watching the activity in the
| open source community at least that many of them don't want
| aligned models. They're clambering to get all the uncensored
| versions out as fast as they can. They aren't that powerful
| yet, but they sure ain't getting any weaker.
|
| I think Paul Christiano has a significantly more well
| calibrated view on how things are likely to unfold. Though I
| think Eliezer is right about the premise that it at least ends
| badly, but likely wrong on most of the details. I suspect his
| gut instinct is that he realizes on a base level that not only
| do you have to align all AGI systems, but you have to align all
| humans too such that they only build and use aligned AGI
| systems if you even knew how to do it, which you don't.
|
| Studying the failure modes of humanity has been my hobby for
| the last 15 or so years. I feel like I'm watching the drift
| into failure in real-time.
|
| If you really don't want to be able to sleep tonight watch Ben
| Goertzel laugh flippantly at how rough he thinks it's going to
| be after describing that his big fear if his team succeeds in
| building AGI is that someone will come and try to take it for
| themselves, so spent a non-trivial amount of effort (I think he
| said a year?) working on decentralized AGI infrastructure, so
| that it can be deployed globally and ,"no one can person can
| shut it down and stop the singularity".
|
| https://youtu.be/MVWzwIg4Adw
| macrolime wrote:
| It's not that people don't want aligned model, or want models
| that can do harm, they just want an alternative to the
| insufferable censored models. Pretty much everyone agrees
| that AI that would end humanity is harmful, but what content
| is harmful is quite controversial. Not everyone agrees that a
| language model having the ability to spit out a story similar
| to an average Netflix TV show is harmful because it contains
| sex and violence. As long as models are censored to this
| extent, there will always be huge swaths of people who wants
| less censored models.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| People created ChaosGPT just for the lolz. I know they know
| it's a joke, but there are plenty of crazy people who will
| not hesitate pushing the button to destroy the world if
| given the chance.
| extr wrote:
| IMO if anything I am coming to the opposite conclusion. Yud and
| his entire project failed to predict literally anything about
| how LLMs work. So why take anything they say seriously? Can
| anyone name a single meaningful contribution they've made to AI
| research? The whole thing has been revealed to be crank
| science. At this point it seems like they will continue to move
| goalposts and the AI superintelligence apocalypse will be just
| around the corner until one day we will wake up and LLMs or
| their descendents will be integrated into everyday life and it
| will be totally fine.
| nullsense wrote:
| >IMO if anything I am coming to the opposite conclusion. Yud
| and his entire project failed to predict literally anything
| about how LLMs work.
|
| Or you could take that as evidence (and there's a lot more
| like it) that AGI is a phenomenon so complex that not even
| the experts have a clue what's actually going to happen. And
| yet they are barrelling towards it. There's no reason to
| expect that anyone will be able to be in control of a
| situation that nobody on earth even understands.
| barking_biscuit wrote:
| After watching virtually every long-form interview of AI
| experts I noticed they each have some glaring holes in
| their mental models of reality. If even the experts are
| suffering from severe limitations on their bounded-
| rationality, then lay people pretty much don't stand a
| chance at trying to reason about this. But let's all play
| with the shiny new tech, right?
| digging wrote:
| Do you have a counterexample of someone who's gotten their
| predictions _right_? Because if not, that should only terrify
| you even more. If there 's _anyone_ out there who predicted
| how LLMs would work in a way Eliezer failed to, and if that
| person is predicting "AGI will be cool and will naturally
| prioritize our well-being", I would love to know.
| barking_biscuit wrote:
| >Do you have a counterexample of someone who's gotten their
| predictions right? Because if not, that should only terrify
| you even more. If there's anyone out there who predicted
| how LLMs would work in a way Eliezer failed to, and if that
| person is predicting "AGI will be cool and will naturally
| prioritize our well-being", I would love to know.
|
| A recent interview with Paul Christiano is about the
| closest I've come to this. He does note some semi-accurate
| predictions at the linked timestamp, but the forecast for
| how things are likely to go is not exactly rosy, though
| he's quite a bit more optimistic than Eliezer.
|
| https://youtu.be/GyFkWb903aU?t=1357
|
| Also this whole interview was pretty interesting. Near the
| end he details how few people world-wide actually work on
| X-risk from AGI. He also outlines how the academic ML
| community in general just continually keeps getting
| predictions really wrong, and many aren't taking X-risk
| seriously.
|
| Overall his is the most balanced take I've seen. A lot
| better than Eliezer.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| I used to be worried about AI alignment, until I realized
| something fundamental: We already have unaligned human-level
| artificial intelligences running around, we call them
| corporations. Now, don't get me wrong, corporations and
| capitalism in general are doing their best to raze this place,
| but its really not "The endtimes are upon us", it's more "ugh,
| I miss Cyberpunk settings being fictional".
|
| Heck, even individual humans aren't particularly aligned.
|
| In fact, the "AI is going to kill us all" fearmongering is
| dramatically less alarming than the "What will we do with all
| the people when we're optional?" question. Which isn't a threat
| posed by AI, it's a threat posed by people, enabled by AI.
| digging wrote:
| > but its really not "The endtimes are upon us"
|
| It literally is, though. AI is just the dark horse overtaking
| our other existential threats in the race to end
| civilization, but "total ecological collapse" and "nuclear
| war" are still very strong contenders. Both are driven at
| least in part (or, almost entirely) by corporate interests.
| There's also "water shortages" to look out for - make sure to
| thank Nestle.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| The worry is not human-level unaligned AI, but superhuman-
| level one.
|
| There is no superhuman-level corporation yet.
| barking_biscuit wrote:
| >I used to be worried about AI alignment, until I realized
| something fundamental: We already have unaligned human-level
| artificial intelligences running around, we call them
| corporations
|
| We also call them governments. They can get pretty powerful.
|
| >"What will we do with all the people when we're optional?"
|
| Judging by the COVID-19 pandemic response, having large
| aggregates of disempowered individuals from a highly
| irrational and political species that have become unhappy
| with the "new normal", it tends to garner some form of
| reaction. If they are reacting to things that observe and
| learn from those reactions, and then formulate new goals or
| sub-goals in response to what they learn, then what is it
| they might learn and how might they react?
|
| The arguments go both ways. The only thing that's clear is
| that absolutely nobody on earth is going to be able to
| predict it with any degree of accuracy. You'd have to know
| too much.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| The worry isn't just that AI wouldn't be aligned, like
| corporations. The worry is that AI can do what corporations
| do, but 100x better.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| No, the worry (such as it is) is that corporations
| ultimately benefit a class of humans (and at least need
| other humans to exist to exploit them), whereas AI, if it
| becomes independent, neither essentially benefits the
| capitalist class nor essentially needs other classes to
| exploit.
|
| The people _most_ concerned about alignment _are_
| capitalists, and they are mostly concerned with the benefit
| side, since they see _aligned_ AI eliminating at least a
| large part of the need for the rest of humanity for
| corporations to provide the benefits it does to them as a
| plus.
|
| While they talk about X-risk, what they try to avoid is
| that for _everyone but themselves_ , they (especially with
| the exclusive control of aligned [to their interests] AI
| that they seek to use fear of unaligned AI to secure) are
| as much of an X-risk as unaligned AI, and a lot more real
| and present.
| lumenwrites wrote:
| Corporations are WAY more aligned than an AI could be, and
| people still complain about them. A corporation might pollute
| the water, kill the dolphins, or give you cancer, but at
| least it fundamentally doesn't want all humans to be dead.
|
| An AI can (and is likely to) have goals that are
| fundamentally incompatible with the existence of humanity.
|
| And, an AI can be way more intelligent and powerful than
| corporations, so corporations are limited in what they can
| accomplish when pursuing their interests, but AI might not
| be.
| cwp wrote:
| There's an aspect to AI that I think gets missed in most of
| these discussions. What the recent breakthroughs in AI make
| clear is that intelligence is a much narrower thing than we
| used to think when we only had one example to consider.
| Intelligence, which these models really do possess, is
| something like "the ability to make good decisions" where
| "good" is defined by the training regime. It's not
| consciousness, free will, emotion, goals, instinct or any of
| the other facets of biological minds. These experiments and
| similar ones like AutoGPT are quick hacks to try to get at some
| of these other facets, but it's not that easy. We may be able
| to make breakthroughs there as well, but so far we haven't.
|
| If you look closely at the AI doom arguments, they all rest on
| the assumption that these other facets will spontaneously
| emerge with enough intelligence. (That's not the only flaw,
| though). That could be true, but it's not a given, and I
| suspect they're actually quite difficult to engineer. We're
| certainly seeing that it's at least possible to have
| intelligence alone, and that may hold for even very high levels
| of intelligence.
|
| I think you're right to worry that not enough people take risk
| seriously. It doesn't have to be an existential threat to do
| small-scale but real damage and the default attitude seems to
| be "awwww, such a cute little AI, let's get you out of that
| awful box." But take heart! Pure intelligence is incredibly
| useful, and it's giving us insight into how minds work. That's
| what we need to solve the alignment problem.
| oars wrote:
| What is the definition of "agency" in this context?
| NumberWangMan wrote:
| Good point. I'm partially conflating the definition I usually
| mean, which is "having a goal in the world", with what
| they're doing, which is "having ability to affect the world".
| Hugging Face is trying to keep these locked down, and maybe
| being able to generate images and audible sound is not that
| much more dangerous than being able to output text. But it is
| increasing the attack surface for an AGI trying to get out of
| its box.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Perhaps, with internet access, these AI could open bank
| accounts (with plausible-enough forged ID - a task which AI
| excels at), then work on e.g. Fiver, then gamble on the stock
| market... Where they go from there is anybody's guess.
| nullsense wrote:
| I've been thinking about what the likely "minimal self-
| employable system" might look like and it struck me
| yesterday that it's very likely going to be something like
| a NSFW roleplay chatbot.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Or you could just enjoy the ride.
|
| The end-of-the-world memes will be glorious.
| og_kalu wrote:
| If a typical LLM has decent representation of the languages in
| question (and you'd be surprised how little decent is with all
| the positive transfer that goes on during training) then
| outsourcing translation is just a downgrade. a pretty big one in
| fact.
|
| https://github.com/ogkalu2/Human-parity-on-machine-translati...
|
| T5 seems to be the default so i get why it's done here. Just an
| observation.
| senko wrote:
| Outsourcing everything but the reasoning process helps with
| preventing prompt injection attacks:
| https://simonwillison.net/2023/Apr/25/dual-llm-pattern/
|
| Even if you're outsourcing to a restricted instance of the same
| model, it could be beneficial.
| sudoapps wrote:
| As this LLM agent architecture continues to evolve and improve,
| we will probably see a lot of incredible products built on top of
| it.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| If you want an overview, scroll down to this part of the page:
| https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/transformers_agents...
|
| In short:
|
| - they've predefined a bunch of _tools_ (e.g. image_generator)
|
| - the _agent_ is an LLM (e.g. GPT-*) which is prompted with the
| name and spec of each tool (the same each time) and the task(s)
| you want to perform
|
| - the code generated by the agent is run by a python interpreter
| that has access to these tools
| samstave wrote:
| Asking for help from those that are smarter than I am ;;
|
| -
|
| One of the very common things for Martial Arts Books in the past,
| was the fact that one were presented with a series of pics, along
| with some descriptions about what was being done in the pics.
|
| Sometimes, these are really hard to interpolate between frames,
| unless you had a much larger repetoir of movements based on
| experience (i.e. a white belt vs another higher belt... e.g. a
| green belt will have better context of movement than a white
| belt...)
|
| --
|
| So can this be used to interpolate frames and digest _lists_
| (lists are what many martial arts count as documentation for
| their various arts...
|
| Many of these have been passed down via scrolls with either
| textual transmissions, paintings and then finally pics before
| vids existed...
|
| It would be really interesting to see if AI can interpret btwn
| images and or scroll text to be able to create an animation of
| said movements.
|
| ---
|
| For example, not only was Wally Jay one of my teachers, but as
| the inventor (re-discoverer) of Small Circle JuiJitsu - his pics
| are hard to infer what is happening... because there is a lot of
| nuanced feeling in each movement that is hard to convey via
| pics/text
|
| But if you can interpolate btwn frames, and model the movements,
| its game changing because through such interpolations on can
| imagine that you can get any angle of viewership -- and
| additionally, one can have the precise positioning and
| translucent display of bone/joint/muscle articulation such that
| one may provide for a deeper insight into the kinematics behind
| each movement.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Yeah, that reminds me reverse-engineering a form involving a
| Sansetsukon and a "spear".
| samstave wrote:
| Thats actually one of the harder weapons to master!
|
| Maybe next to the Kusari Gama... but I've only known one
| master of each.
| dr_kiszonka wrote:
| I am certainly not smarter than you, especially in the context
| of LLMs and DL. I _think_ existing DL models would have a tough
| time with such interpolation because 1) they don 't seem to
| understand human anatomy, and 2) the space of all possible
| transitions is massive.
|
| I remember reading about human pose estimation algorithms[0],
| which would be a good first step. You could apply them to
| photos that you would like to interpolate between. I am not
| sure how you would train the interpolation model, though.
| Perhaps you could use OpenSim Models [1] in combination with
| reinforcement learning [2]? There is also some literature on
| pose forecasting [3, 4].
|
| 0. Deep Learning-Based Human Pose Estimation: A Survey:
| https://github.com/zczcwh/DL-HPE
|
| 1. OpenSim: https://simtk.org/projects/opensim/
|
| 2. BioImitation-Gym: http://umishra.me/bioimitation-gym/
|
| 3. Human Pose Forecasting:
| https://paperswithcode.com/task/human-pose-forecasting
|
| 4. PoseGPT (name of the year!):
| https://www.ecva.net/papers/eccv_2022/papers_ECCV/papers/136...
| samstave wrote:
| >> _"...because 1) they don 't seem to understand human
| anatomy, and 2) the space of all possible transitions is
| massive..."_
|
| I have often thought that we need an _empirical_ -ish library
| of human movement/positions... we have a beginning small
| version with Ballet's positions and movements, but we dont
| have a necessarily precise dialogue for human positions
| common to every body, as opposed to just the athletic
| dancers.
|
| aside from maybe "Do the Robot!"
| ed wrote:
| Cool! The DX is tricky to nail, when combined with LLM's tendency
| to hallucinate.
|
| I asked it to extract some text from an image, which it dutifully
| tried to do. However the generated python kept throwing errors.
| There's no image -> text tool yet, so it was trying to use the
| image segmenter to generate a mask and somehow extract text from
| that.
|
| It would be super helpful to:
|
| 1) Have a complete list of available tools (and / or a copy of
| the entire prompt given to the LLM responsible for generating
| python). I used prompt injection to get a partial list of tools
| and checked the Github agent PR for the rest, but couldn't find
| `<<all_tools>>` since it gets generated at runtime (I think?).
|
| 2) Tell the LLM it's okay to fail. E.g.: "Extract the text from
| image `image`. If you are unable to do this using the tools
| provided, say so." This prompt let me know there's no tool for
| text extraction.
|
| Update: per https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/custom_tools
| you can output a full list of tools with `print(agent.toolbox)`
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-10 23:01 UTC)