[HN Gopher] Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source
___________________________________________________________________
Llama and ChatGPT Are Not Open-Source
Author : webmaven
Score : 33 points
Date : 2023-07-27 21:27 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
| aaur0 wrote:
| I wrote a small piece sharing my views on the topic
| https://medium.com/@anandandbeyond/rethinking-open-source-fo...
| version_five wrote:
| And posted the link to your subscribers only medium page twice
| in this thread
| smoldesu wrote:
| Previously:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36820122
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36806536
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36791671
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36783019
| version_five wrote:
| To be fair, the title is the same but this article is really
| about a study of the openness characteristics of different AI
| models, which is new. This link had the comparison of different
| models: https://opening-up-chatgpt.github.io/
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Can we please stop using terminology related to code for
| something that's _not_ code?
| hprotagonist wrote:
| sometimes it's hard to see a difference.
| aaur0 wrote:
| Exactly - I wrote something on similar lines here :
| https://medium.com/@anandandbeyond/rethinking-open-source-fo...
| jehb wrote:
| Of note, if you're interested in helping participate in the
| discussion of what an open source AI _would_ actually look like,
| the Open Source Initiative is looking for your help:
|
| https://opensource.org/deepdive/
| version_five wrote:
| In there somewhere in there where they are asking for input? It
| presents itself that way but it seems the only way to "help" is
| to propose a presentation under their call for speakers:
| https://sessionize.com/deepdiveai
|
| Is there another way to contribute?
| bick_nyers wrote:
| I personally do not want the companies to release training data
| (at least for a while) because then it gives people leverage to
| neuter it.
|
| I don't want a sanitized LLM, and I don't have $60M lying around
| to train my own.
|
| Copyrighted material, sexual content, political opinions, throw
| it all in and release it please!
|
| Yes, reducing bias in the models is a noble goal, but introducing
| new bias and blindspots to do it is a no-no.
|
| Maybe I just got added to a list somewhere for having this
| opinion.
| kristopolous wrote:
| We really need to somehow separate a bias towards accuracy as
| distinct from some bias towards say, a sports team.
|
| Using everything would be like taking a bunch of students final
| exams and then claiming the most common answers are the correct
| ones.
|
| This isn't how expertise and accuracy works. Most things worth
| doing are not only genuinely hard and complicated but something
| that only a minority subset of accomplished people can do
| consistently well in.
|
| Listening to everybody and incorporating their thoughts is only
| going to lead to wrong answers.
|
| Being selective is the key here unless you genuinely want say,
| answers about to space to involve aliens and UFOs - because way
| more people believe in that then there are qualified PhD
| astrophysicists in the world.
|
| Similarly, way more people believe in vaccine conspiracy
| theories then there are people with significant viral
| epidemiology backgrounds.
|
| This pattern is true in every field.
| bick_nyers wrote:
| Why is it a binary choice? "Most students would answer X, due
| to this common misconception about Y".
|
| As we have seen from history, there is not often an absolute
| truth to questions, only clusters of truths. We want our LLM
| to be able to perform reasoning, mathematics, and science,
| but expecting absolute truths in anything outside of those
| fields is a bit much. Wikipedia often takes a good approach
| here and strikes this balance well. You can represent the
| "crazies" and show their reasoning, and then draw attention
| to how it is commonly refuted. You don't get this if you just
| omit the "crazies" to begin with.
| version_five wrote:
| 100% agree. People that want training data released mostly just
| want to find something to attack, it has nothing to do with
| transparency.
| threeseed wrote:
| > reducing bias in the models is a noble goal
|
| It's also a necessary goal in order for these models to be more
| broadly adopted.
|
| We've seen too many examples of bias in the training data set
| manifesting in ways that actively discriminate against people.
| Which is unethical and in many places illegal.
|
| And having copyrighted material and sexual content in your
| model will simply open you up to lawsuits as is happening right
| now between authors and OpenAI. Not sure that is a position
| most startups want to be in.
| bick_nyers wrote:
| College students don't want to be criminally charged with
| theft for pirating an $800 college textbook either. I'm not
| giving business advice, I'm giving humanity and knowledge
| propagation advice.
|
| As I mentioned, reducing bias is good so long as it doesn't
| introduce more bias elsewhere. The ultimate goal of course
| being a 100% bias free model.
| version_five wrote:
| Nah, these are foundation models. Companies want to be able
| to put in guard rails that are applicable to their
| application, not start with a model lobotomized according to
| US tech company values. The censorship is about telling
| people how to think, like it always is, not for the good of
| the people using the models.
| bick_nyers wrote:
| Yup. Advance the foundation models as far as possible to
| create a representation of the internet/human experience
| and place safeguards on top.
|
| Don't want your LLM to be used to create erotic fanfiction?
| Instead of gutting the LLM, just put a detector on the
| query and answers feeding into the LLM. Thankfully, with a
| non-neutered model you have access to a tool than can be
| used to perform such detection...
| threeseed wrote:
| > US tech company values
|
| Which do broadly align with the values across most of the
| world.
|
| But if you want to build something that has different
| values then go ahead.
|
| But you can't expect companies to be complicit in doing
| something which is unethical or illegal.
| [deleted]
| porantz wrote:
| [dead]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-27 23:01 UTC)