[HN Gopher] Gorilla: Large Language Model connected with massive...
___________________________________________________________________
Gorilla: Large Language Model connected with massive APIs
Author : shishirpatil
Score : 160 points
Date : 2023-05-25 17:05 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gorilla.cs.berkeley.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (gorilla.cs.berkeley.edu)
| EddieEngineers wrote:
| Cool work @shishirpatil - I'll check it out later & certainly
| join the discord!
|
| Saying this, have you considered you may be responsible for
| opening the AI floodgates to the internet & are starting the
| apocalypse of Humankind? I'm only half '/s' here, the speed
| everything is moving at is insane.
| kodah wrote:
| How feasible would it be for me to run things like this and a
| ChatGPT/CoPilot style LLM on my local servers?
| seydor wrote:
| check out oobabooga, you can run most llama derivatives with a
| browser UI
| vs4vijay wrote:
| Welcome to https://old.reddit.com/r/LocalGPT/
| nacs wrote:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/ < much larger/active
| (and its not just for the meta-llama)
| billconan wrote:
| the thing is that, many tasks require a workflow, rather than a
| single api call. can this model figure out a workflow?
| jfarina wrote:
| It sounds like it can expedite the interpretation of the APIs
| documentation.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Builds integrations to APIs vs no code/low code providers
| doing it it seems. The logical next step is to make LLM
| workflow running robust and maintainable.
| visarga wrote:
| The dataset is good though, covers many model APIs.
| Datasets are portable, can be used in many ways.
| seydor wrote:
| If people are surpassing GPT4 with finetuned Llama-7B, this is
| the end for NotOpenAI's parade
| skilled wrote:
| It's clickbait. The page clearly says API related. Scummy
| approach to wording but totally expected.
| seydor wrote:
| it is accurate, their trained model does surpass GPT4 and
| Claude. Which means someone can beat GTP4 in specific
| applications with a model that runs in an old graphics card
| ethanbond wrote:
| Don't worry folks, the years and years of "of course we'd never
| connect experimental AI systems to the open internet" assurances
| were never necessary for safe development and deployment.
|
| This reassessment was founded on the last several months that
| showed us these systems are close to 100% dependable, they never
| deceive humans, they are entirely aligned with human morals (you
| know, all those morals we all agree on), they are advancing at a
| totally predictable rate, and we never see unexpected behaviors
| from them. Besides, they can only be wielded by people who we
| trust have good intentions.
|
| No, this re-assessment has nothing to do with market dynamics
| incentivizing people to deploy experimental systems further into
| the infrastructure we depend on.
| fastglass wrote:
| I like how people talk about this the same way they do gun
| safety
| airgapstopgap wrote:
| Other than snark, do you have a good argument? We know that
| technology can be error-prone, and LLMs fail in a great
| plethora of ways, but you are trying to sell an AI Doom
| narrative. I have never bought the idea that AI will be
| airgapped, because the whole paradigm of Yudkowsky at al. is
| ludicrous and even within it airgapping was a strawman of a
| technique (they argue that a truly dangerous AI will get itself
| out regardless).
|
| > they are entirely aligned with human morals (you know, all
| those morals we all agree on)
|
| Maybe this is a good cause to reassess the premise of alignment
| as a valuable goal? I know that at least some alignist fanatics
| admit [1] it's a religious project to bring humanity under the
| rule of a common ideologically monolithic governance to forever
| banish the evils of competition etc., and it's intellectually
| coherent, but evil from my point of view. Naturally this is the
| exact sort of disagreement about morals that precludes the
| possibility of alignment of a single AI both to my and to your
| values.
|
| > they are advancing at a totally predictable rate, and we
| never see unexpected behaviors from them.
|
| Since when is this a requirement for technology to be allowed?
|
| > Besides, they can only be wielded by people who we trust have
| good intentions.
|
| What, other than status quo bias, makes you tolerate, I dunno,
| the existence of cryptography?
|
| 1. https://twitter.com/RokoMijic/status/1660450229043249154
| ethanbond wrote:
| Sure, my argument is that there is zero evidence whatsoever
| we will be able to prevent these from becoming dangerous _or_
| that we'd be able to stop deployment once they do.
|
| All technologies are dangerous, and many of the _most_
| dangerous ones correctly have tons and tons of safeguards
| around them both as intrinsic properties of the technology
| (e.g. it takes nationstate resources to produce a nuke) and
| extrinsic constraints (e.g. it's illegal to have campfires in
| many extremely dry locales).
|
| We have blown through checkpoint after checkpoint and here,
| in this very comment, we have perhaps the most brazen example
| one could produce:
|
| Well geez, now that we're thinking about it beyond a cursory
| glance, alignment looks really hard and perhaps unsolvable.
| Does that mean we should perhaps slow at least widespread
| deployment of these increasingly powerful systems? Should we
| be evaluating control schemes like those that mitigate risks
| of genetic engineering or nuclear weapons?
|
| Well no! We need to _discard alignment!_
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| I wish I could create an AGI that would be able to create
| undetectable bots to upvote this comment hundreds of
| thousands of times.
| telotortium wrote:
| And I likewise, but to downvote instead.
| robwwilliams wrote:
| Wait, I too thought your original comment on alignment
| questioned its fundamental premise--than one dominant
| culture should not/cannot define the adequacy of alignment.
|
| I would agree with that. There is no single
| adequate/acceptable framework for alignment. I have mine
| (which resonates with R. Rorty's pragmatic philosophy) but
| can I deny you your framework for good AI alignment, or
| other cultures and nation states?
|
| For better or for worse the secular western reductionist
| world does not get to call all of the shots, even though
| this is the origin of the technology and the core problem
| of AI heading to AGI.
|
| Not that any of us know where this is heading, but unlike
| some technologies this one is clearly heading out into the
| open with unprecedented speed. We all have justified angst.
|
| Who can claim priority at this point in imposing order and
| de-risking the process? I am sure I do not want OpenAI,
| Microsoft, Google, the US government, or the Catholic
| Church trying to impose their judgements. Get ready for AGI
| cultural diversity and I sincerely hope--coexistence.
| petters wrote:
| > Maybe this is a good cause to reassess the premise of
| alignment as a valuable goal?
|
| Could you elaborate here? Alignment seems pretty obviously a
| good thing.
| robwwilliams wrote:
| Alignment assumes a well agreed foundational philosophy on
| what is good, what is fair, what is doable today and
| tomorrow. Yes, HN contributors might have shared goals for
| AGI alignment--but we are not the world---we are a thin
| slice of one culture.
| generalspecific wrote:
| I think a more individualistic definition of alignment
| could say that an AI that a person is directing doesn't
| do something that person does not desire - this
| definition removes the "foundational philosophy of what
| is good" problem, but does leave the "lunatic wants to
| destroy the world with AIs help" problem. Tricky times
| ahead
| esafak wrote:
| You can't please everyone, so it is best for good-natured
| people to get out front. It's the same with any powerful
| technology.
|
| Are you going to invite religious extremists to the table
| in the name of fairness?
| s3p wrote:
| OP does not.
| [deleted]
| bioemerl wrote:
| If AI becomes harmful we will likely see it in motion and be
| able to respond and adapt to it.
|
| We will live in a world where the humans on the internet are
| far far far more dangerous than any of these machines. The
| harms here are relatively small.
|
| The only thing AI has is scale, but what's running at a higher
| scale than humanity? Every site already runs scam filters and
| handles misinformation. AI won't likely move the needle much
| because it's going to be less powerful than humans.
|
| The potential benefits, meanwhile, are plentiful and massive.
|
| I do not believe we need to wait for a solution to the nebulous
| and badly defined "control problem" to be solved to match
| forward here.
|
| If we refused to advance out of fear, that fear will have done
| far more harm than access to AI will ever do.
| soperj wrote:
| > If AI becomes harmful we will likely see it in motion and
| be able to respond and adapt to it.
|
| What are you basing this on?
|
| > AI won't likely move the needle much because it's going to
| be less powerful than humans.
|
| Won't it just be used to augment the amount of harm that
| humans can do?
| bioemerl wrote:
| > What are you basing this on?
|
| History. We have had a period of adaptation and
| experimentation with every other invention in history. This
| one likely will be no different.
|
| > Won't it just be used to augment the amount of harm that
| humans can do?
|
| Sure, but that's everything that makes us more capable. It
| also makes us more able to defend and create.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >History
|
| Right, I learned from Napoleon about the dangers of AI...
|
| The large land mammals were doing pretty well too, until
| a bipedal superintelligence showed up.
|
| History is a get thing to learn from and a very poor
| thing to assume is going to repeat.
| killingtime74 wrote:
| You've just provided evidence that humans are the most
| dangerous, not anything else on this planet.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I mean, so far yes. At the same time we have tons of
| people spending billions of dollars to make sure that's
| not the case, and I'm pretty sure they are going to
| succeed.
| bioemerl wrote:
| You would have more weight behind your words if there was
| any sort of precedent for AI as it exists today being
| super intelligent, or that you could make a case for some
| method by which you could suddenly ramp out of control
| without our notice.
|
| But as is, all you're doing is making theories, and
| there's not much of any precedent for any of them.
| soperj wrote:
| > that you could make a case for some method by which you
| could suddenly ramp out of control without our notice.
|
| lots of things ramp up without our notice. Like CO2 in
| the atmosphere, or Ozone depleting chemicals, or PFAS in
| the water, microplastics in the ocean. I don't think it's
| a small list.
| bioemerl wrote:
| CO2 has not ramped up without notice, nor did ozone nor
| pfas. There are active efforts too handle each of them,
| and the only reason we aren't cracking down on most of
| those harder is that the utility they provide to human
| beings is far greater than the damages right now.
| soperj wrote:
| Sure they did. They are now active efforts to handle
| them, but after they became issues, not while they were
| ramping up.
| groby_b wrote:
| If you want to make a claim that we won't even see change
| coming, maybe the large mammals->humanoids transition
| isn't the greatest example. That took several hundreds of
| thousands of years.
|
| They did, to some extent, see it coming (in observing a
| threat becoming more prevalent and dangerous). But they
| did not have a way to stop humans. Meanwhile, I'm just
| staring at the power switch on my computer, wondering how
| we'd stop AI.
|
| (This is not an argument for unrestrained AI - we should
| safeguard, absolutely. It is a counterpoint to your "we
| won't see it coming" argument)
| EGreg wrote:
| How exactly do you propose we adapt to swarms of AI agents
| that quickly outnumber humans in quantity and quality of
| content produced?
| bioemerl wrote:
| > that quickly outnumber humans in quantity and quality
|
| I suggest you respond by enjoying the quality content.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Sorry, was busy plugging my paperclip optimizer into the
| internet, what's up exactly?
| bioemerl wrote:
| Do you have a paperclip optimizer? No such thing exists,
| it's science fiction
| pixl97 wrote:
| I mean corporations are the weak versions of such
| optimizers already.
|
| DNA/RNA is a strong version, but luckily we're aligned
| with it by evolution, but still at risk of extinction by
| disease.
| bioemerl wrote:
| I'm sorry, but this is nonsensical. These little AI have
| trouble putting more than a couple of strings of
| sentences together without going incoherent.
|
| The fact that corporations try to improve themselves and
| innovate with time has nothing to do with AI or LLMs and
| their risks.
|
| The fact that evolution exists also has nothing to do
| with it.
| andrewmutz wrote:
| Many of us have not been persuaded by the pervasive, kneejerk
| fear of AI that floods social media.
|
| If social media had been around in the past, we'd have never
| developed trains or electricity or cars because of the
| crippling fear that something bad might happen along the way.
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| I don't see cars as being comparable to the universal usage
| of electrical energy as an intermediate of converting
| physical forms of energy. Not even close.
|
| And also, the "deployment" of cars if you will, has brought
| and still brings malignant effecfs on society, not only
| positives. If by cars you mean cars for transporting
| individual people in non-critical situations and the
| corresponding industrial and political developments,
| especially around urban planning.
|
| Nor arguing about the significance of the effects, but the
| discovery of electricity and how to use it seem more useful
| to me than the discovery of using fossil fuel cumbustion for
| transporting people.
|
| Road transit in total is a different thing of course.
| andrewmutz wrote:
| If a technology has positives and negatives consequences
| for the world, but the positives outweigh the negatives,
| then we want those technologies to be developed. For cars,
| the positives outweigh the negatives.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >For cars, the positives outweigh the negatives
|
| TBD: climate change is the unaddressed elephant in that
| room
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| Regarding the comparison: it's just that there are
| infinitely many modes of transporting people different
| from cars, that's why I argued against it.
|
| I would not argue against the point that cars in
| themselves are very useful.
|
| If the point however is how we are using them and how
| many of them we build or how we arrange our living around
| the necessary public infrastructure to use cars for
| anythint, I'm not sure if I agree.
|
| IMO, as of now, this is a case of "market failure", if
| you will. But I know that the majority of people don't
| agree with this.
|
| As I see it, one of the main usages of cars seems to be
| to use them for not having to be around car traffic: e.g.
| living in suburbs, "escaping" into nature on the
| weekends.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I don't think anyone (well maybe the Amish) are arguing
| that all technology is bad. Only that _some_ technology
| _might_ be bad, and it is worth trying to figure out the
| implications of releasing increasingly capable models to
| the public.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Is this meant to be convincing? All you're doing is
| asserting that the positives outweigh the negatives and
| starting from there.
|
| _That_ is the point of disagreement. We do not currently
| know if the positives outweigh the negatives.
|
| I am saying that market incentives are good at spurring
| more people to scale these systems and their deployments
| up, and those incentives are _not good_ at mitigating
| negative externalities.
|
| What I am pointing out is that the system of incentives
| surrounding these technologies has failed to produce
| anything resembling a safe development trajectory. No,
| these systems are not quite sky-is-falling-scary yet,
| _but if AI development achieves its promise_ , they
| absolutely will be.
|
| We have no reason to believe, as a commenter asserts
| below, that in just _a few more_ inches closer to
| potential catastrophe we (who?) will decide (how?) to
| pull the reins (where?).
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| When cars were first entering the market they were only
| legally allowed to go at 4mph and a guy had to walk in front
| of it with a big flag.
|
| I don't think it's the example you want to use.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Fear of AI has been real and well-articulated for at least 70
| years.
|
| The current trajectory has done very little to assuage those
| fears and quite a bit to validate or even amplify them.
| EGreg wrote:
| I totally agree!
|
| I for one welcome our AI overlords. Scan my text. I am of
| course in favor of the good things and good morality and let's
| stay away from the bad things.
| avg_dev wrote:
| I agree with this assessment 100%. We are asking for trouble
| with this sort of thing.
|
| I wrote my own thoughts on the subject on a couple of other
| threads:
|
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35274017 - on an article
| on (Google) Bard
|
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35020806 - on an article
| about a tool called Self-Learning Agent for Performing APIs
| (SLAPA)
| worik wrote:
| There sign in uses a google form, and is insisting I am logged in
| to google.
|
| What is this? I mean, what is the date? 2005?
| sudoapps wrote:
| I can see this being useful as a specialized (fine-tuned) LLM in
| a chain of LLMs for full autonomy
| ManuelKiessling wrote:
| Plug: I've built something vaguely similar, but of course a
| trillion times less brilliant and powerful, yet nonetheless
| useful for some straightforward cases where really you just want
| GPT et al. to call your API at just the right moment of the
| conversation, with JSON that is guaranteed to be valid:
|
| https://github.com/manuelkiessling/php-ai-tool-bridge
| sandGorgon wrote:
| would this outperform the api<>instruction pairs stuffed into a
| vector db and running an retrieval augmented chain of thought on
| openai
|
| this is how openai plugins work right ?
| behnamoh wrote:
| can people stop using animal names for their models and methods?
| At least with LlaMA, the name was an acronym, but Gorilla is
| clearly just marketing. flagged.
| anaganisk wrote:
| Why should they, and it seems very silly to flag a post for
| their preference of name. Are users on Twitter birds? Or is
| Mastodon filled with elephants? Name is merely a symbol in
| today's world Google is synonymous to search but Google is not
| just search anymore. I'm honestly curious about your gripe with
| it.
| behnamoh wrote:
| Some people confuse research with production. Imagine if
| Einstein named his theory the Theory of Chimps, just to get
| attention.
| sebastiansm wrote:
| Imagine working in the Manhattan project outside Manhattan.
| anaganisk wrote:
| What's the point of research if it can't gain attention,
| how many people really understood or even know about some
| space magic, before interstellar kind of managed to ELI5.
| Research is meant for everyone, and in today's world you
| bring attention to it with catchy names. I wonder if Google
| was named PageRank Algorithm runner, how many would've even
| used it.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| There's loads of stuff in physics with silly sounding
| names. quarks, anyons, etc.
| EddieEngineers wrote:
| If Gorilla upsets you, wait till you hear about
| Cummingtonite!
| zellyn wrote:
| Note: if you read the paper carefully, this is LlaMA-derived, so
| suffers from the same use restrictions. We really need the open
| LLMs to catch up!
| jimsimmons wrote:
| Realistically you can assume there'll be one soon and develop
| with these models and switch over
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| There are some already (one of the openllamas I think, and
| that discord group made one with the linear attention
| recently although trained on fewer params I think)
|
| Maybe not easy to switch to a non-meta-llama ?
| jondwillis wrote:
| Can't wait for this to land in langchain!
| fruktmix wrote:
| Harambe tried to warn us
| operator-name wrote:
| Address not found?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-25 23:01 UTC)