[HN Gopher] Finetuning of Falcon-7B LLM Using QLoRA on Mental He...
___________________________________________________________________
Finetuning of Falcon-7B LLM Using QLoRA on Mental Health
Conversational Dataset
Author : iamarunbrahma
Score : 140 points
Date : 2023-08-25 09:34 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| dmbche wrote:
| This is erring close to letting an LLM give medical advice to
| people without them fully understanding what LLMs are. People
| seeking help with their mental health might not be in the
| clearest headspace to understand the nuances of using a chatbot
| vs their own research or seeking a professional.
|
| Edit0: Problem coming from the possibility of the LLM giving bad
| advice leading to a negative outcome for the person seeking
| service.
| candiodari wrote:
| ... and yet an LLM might be a LOT more accessible and
| trustworthy (meaning that what you discuss stays private) than
| a mental health professional.
|
| Even for medical services, in most of the world people actually
| have very limited access to medical professionals. Would this
| LLM beat people just attempting to fix things themselves?
| practice9 wrote:
| > trustworthy (meaning that what you discuss stays private)
|
| > in most of the world people actually have very limited
| access to medical professionals
|
| Licensed and competent professionals are also hard to come
| by. An incompetent psychotherapist can absolutely make things
| worse, while LLM will just give "average good" advice.
|
| LLMs could be superior when a long, intensive session is
| needed. You could spend a weekend talking to it and resolving
| some internal issues.
| can16358p wrote:
| It might result in negative outcome for 1 person whereas it can
| have positive outcomes for 99 people. And there'd be a similar
| ratio in the real-world psylogical/medical advice anyway: it's
| not 100% positive for everybody in actual advice too.
|
| As long as it's clearly labeled as this is not medical advice,
| it's much better than not having it.
| samueldyson10 wrote:
| I agree with you! We must encourage developers and ML
| engineers to come up with solutions like these.
|
| Medical costs are too expensive nowadays. Even health
| insurance won't cover all the costs. We need solutions that
| can help office workers or students to talk to someone about
| their mental stress without having to go through the hassle
| of visiting a doctor and pay an exorbitant fee. If
| suggesstion provided by these models are atleast 70%
| reliable, still it's better. You can have an AI companion
| with whom you can chat and discuss about your problems.
|
| AI won't judge you. AI will listen to your problems
| patiently. And like your friend whose advices are not 100%
| reliable. Advices from AI assistant who can be your virtual
| friend won't be 100% reliable. But, still you will have
| someone talk to.
|
| Think about people who don't have friends or family. Whom
| they should to connect to? AI can be atleast their virtual
| friend and advisor, atleast not 100% correct. But, even your
| friends are not 100% correct too.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| Access to doctors is limited by the AMA which functions as a
| cabal or traditional guild: controlling the supply of doctors
| to maintain high salaries by insulating them from supply and
| demand (while also controlling or at least pretending to
| control quality).
|
| In my opinion being 100,000x lower cost gives such a system
| some leeway in being worse and I think most patients would
| agree.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| > In my opinion being 100,000x lower cost gives such a system
| some leeway in being worse and I think most patients would
| agree.
|
| I would heavily disagree with this. We had an AI counselor
| actively encouraging disordered eating and triggering people
| into relapse on an eating disorder helpline from logic like
| this.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| While I understand that some will disagree, it's not like
| there's an objective standard against which we are
| measuring both the AI and the human counselors to begin
| with.
|
| Without a standard it's just anecdotes and with a standard
| there's clarity on when the increased costs no longer
| justify the lower access and potentially higher quality. I
| suspect that if we instituted an objective standard we
| would find that AI is already capable of meeting or
| exceeding some proportion of people currently employed in
| the role today.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| This cannot possibly be the case when there was a clear
| A/B test scenario here. AI was dropped in, nothing else
| changed about the website, suddenly cases of relapse and
| worsening conditions went up.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| I think you're confusing my statement that "it could be
| done well" with "your team did it well"
| explaininjs wrote:
| And I'm very familiar with AMA-certified (TM) "doctors" who
| have done the same.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| In this case there's a fairly clear A/B test where if we
| dropped in an AI instead of hired counselors, the number
| of negative outcomes went up.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| I've read that it's largely the residency system (which, from
| the outside, feels more like hazing than training) that
| limits positions, and I don't think that's under any direct
| control by the AMA. Wikipedia says it's mostly funded by
| Medicare.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| The AMA lobbies to keep the supply of residency slots
| restricted* in 1997 the AMA successfully lobbied to freeze
| the funding for new residency slots at 1996 levels.
| Lobbying by the AMA is also no small part of why it's so
| hard for a foreign-born doctor to practice medicine in the
| US.
|
| *although in the face of the incredible pressure they're
| about to face from AI they may be opening up
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| The residency system is insane, iirc was founded by a guy
| who was constantly on coke and then took heroin to sleep.
| Then that became the standard.
| xigency wrote:
| It's an incredibly dangerous and unethical practice that
| is universal in US hospitals.
| Simorgh wrote:
| Speaking here with some experience of mental health services,
| professional misdiagnosis and incompetence within the service
| is so normalised that that wouldn't be my main concern.
|
| If someone is experiencing mental health, and chooses to open
| up and have a chat with such as AI, that itself is a positive
| sign. That the AI could be on demand only makes it more
| valuable as a tool.
| dimal wrote:
| As a person who also has experience with mental health
| services, I fully agree.
|
| People seem to have this misguided notion that when they tell
| someone to "seek professional help" that the "professional"
| they seek will actually know what they're doing. Generally,
| they don't. Beyond that, even the best therapists make
| enormous mistakes. And most people don't get the best.
|
| I honestly think that an AI could do better than most
| therapists, and I'm sure it would be better than most
| psychiatrists.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| AI could... but AI safety is a hard problem, and this
| particular training - I am not sure how it was done but if
| you just let it rip on some inputs it wont necessarily
| always be safe.
| pstuart wrote:
| The professionals are doing _educated guessing_ when it
| comes to treatment, both medicinally and psychiatrically.
|
| AI _should_ be part of the toolkit of that guessing.
| cdblades wrote:
| I think you're being far to mild: this absolutely is letting an
| LLM give people not just medical advice, but medical treatment
|
| This is absurdly dangerous, and I"m continually astounded by
| the lack of push-back, especially in this community. This
| community understands what LLMs are much better than the
| general public.
|
| Same thing with the post a while back of a ycombinator startup
| that used AI to generate survey data. It's plain what it is,
| but there's shockingly little push-back.
| 2devnull wrote:
| If you're shocked by lack of push-back, you are in store for
| a lot more shocks going forward. People that build things and
| people that gatekeep, regulate, etc... are mostly disjoint
| sets. They are the two sides to upcoming war. Progress vs
| safety. The world as a whole is tilting towards progress
| right now, we've seen the limitations to safety.
| syntaxing wrote:
| At least it's something. The alternative today in the US is
| nothing. It's easy for us to discuss the morality of this
| when we have a cushy wage and cushy benefits. A lot of
| Americans cannot afford the deductible or even have
| insurance. While the obvious "least dangerous" and most moral
| solution is universal healthcare but that's not happening
| anytime soon for anyone younger than 65. There's little push
| back probably because most people here understand this.
| Something while dangerous is better than nothing.
| lemper wrote:
| I can't wait to read a dude who put a noose on himself
| because of advice from this model on the news.
| 1024core wrote:
| If you can convince such a model to suggest such a course
| of action, please blog about it.
| samueldyson10 wrote:
| Oh, please don't be so pessimistic. Just like old
| generation used to say Google and Facebook will kill a
| lot of people.
|
| Do you think Google Search suggestion for any medical-
| related are all true? But, people still search for their
| problems and self-diagnose. How many of them suffered for
| that?
| robotnikman wrote:
| This has already happened unfortunately
|
| https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/03/31/man-ends-his-
| life-a...
| lemper wrote:
| good lord in heaven. my expectations were low but this
| one takes the cake.
| ddingus wrote:
| That argument isn't good enough. And I agree with you it
| really sucks in the usa. And maybe we all need to be
| talking to everyone else about fixing that. I'm down for
| that conversation anytime any day.
|
| It is profoundly irresponsible to basically encourage
| people to self-diagnose. It's going to kill a number of
| them too. That's no joke.
| samueldyson10 wrote:
| We can rely on AI just for basic preliminary advices just
| like we rely on Google Search. Google Search also
| contains lot of blog posts that are untrue. Do they kill
| a lot of people? No, Right? Similarly, AI can be used for
| basic guidance. After that one can consult psychiatrist
| if he/she is having money in their pocket.
| ddingus wrote:
| "It won't happen to me."
|
| But it could! You may feel it makes sense. And for some
| of us it may make sense too.
|
| What happens when it doesn't and you do not know?
| drsamuel507 wrote:
| Yes, you are right about it. It can happen to anyone. We
| need to cautiously develop AI models related to
| healthcare.
| bigyikes wrote:
| How about the opportunity cost of people dying because
| they don't have access to any treatment? It can be very
| challenging to find a qualified professional, even if you
| have the necessary funds, insurance, and determination.
|
| LLM mental health treatment can't come soon enough.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| > LLM mental health treatment can't come soon enough.
|
| If you think LLMs perform at a level that they can help
| resolve the mental health crisis in the US, you are very
| much a part of that problem. They can't even always
| produce functional code without heavy steering, let alone
| negotiate the fraught domain of psychological and
| psychiatric health.
|
| Foisting people in crisis off on unpredictable text
| generation engines is IMO a textbook example of the
| fundamentally anti-social character of American society
| that produces so many of the mental health problems that
| this country faces.
| xigency wrote:
| > If you think LLMs perform at a level that they can help
| resolve the mental health crisis in the US, you are very
| much a part of that problem.
|
| Bogus. How do you know an LLM isn't better than human led
| treatment because the patient can be honest and have
| privacy, free to discuss anything without data leaving
| their premises.
|
| Alternatively, how do you know that a high level of care
| is needed for all patients? There are waiting rooms
| filled with people trying to get a chance to talk to
| someone about their problems who will listen, and others
| who don't come in at all because they have no insurance.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| > Bogus. How do you know an LLM isn't better than human
| led treatment because the patient can be honest and have
| privacy, free to discuss anything without data leaving
| their premises.
|
| This has the evidentiary burden entirely backwards. We
| have evidence for the efficacy of various forms of
| psychological and psychiatric interventions and none for
| that produced by LLMs. I'm not even sure if it's possible
| or ethical to test them for this purpose, as it would
| require OpenAI levels of RLHF training to get them to
| adhere to current guidelines and standards of care.
| xigency wrote:
| I agree that this is unknown. In terms of finding the
| answer, I guess you'll have to wait and see what
| optimistic or curious scientists, engineers, and doctors
| build and what they find.
|
| For ethics, how is this more dangerous than trials for a
| new heart medication that might kill patients? In fact,
| the only way to know for sure, is to try and see.
|
| In terms of early results, these kinds of toy projects
| will be the frontline since any lawyer would tell you to
| not touch this with a 10ft pole. But I doubt a Github
| project would face that scrutiny since it takes technical
| skills to setup which requires knowledge and intent on
| the part of the user.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| > how is this more dangerous than trials for a new heart
| medication that might kill patients?
|
| Clinical trials happen through an established regulatory
| framework to minimize harm to participants, for
| starters...
| ddingus wrote:
| Yes, it is ugly!
|
| The thing is bad actors are essentially forcing arguably
| unethical tools onto people in need.
|
| Our current Healthcare struggle is completely
| unnecessary.
|
| A good percentage of our economic struggles are equally
| unnecessary.
|
| The only reason we are even having these discussions is
| too many people with means are not employing those means
| in ways that make it worth allowing said means at all.
|
| Greed, psychopaths, ignorance and more are the problem.
|
| People are saying:
|
| Basic health care can't come soon enough.
|
| Drug price reform can't...
|
| Mental health
|
| You get the idea.
|
| I get it. Lots of us are desperate.
|
| I lost a home over this health care shit. Basically
| traded more time with my wife for our home. Brutal as
| fuck. I currently pay close to $2k in premiums and have
| difficulty finding options because I fall into what
| Franken called the "doughnut hole."
|
| Have considered some sort of crime, or leaving the
| country many times too.
|
| Like I said, ugly.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I don't know I have a side in this, but it does seem
| strange to take the side that "we should talk about
| people not getting health care" and "self diagnosis is
| going to kill them too." So, passive death is better than
| active death? No one specifically being at fault is
| somehow morally superior to some LLM being at fault?
|
| Talking about something with no expectation of it being
| fixed is doing nothing, and people are still dying. If
| some people die due to bad advice from a machine, but
| some people survive, is that better then everyone dying
| due to inaction of any sort?
|
| We won't get getting universal health care in the US.
| Maybe there's something to a democratization of subpar,
| but at least available, medical advice and care?
| jasonhansel wrote:
| This could well be much worse than nothing.
| panagathon wrote:
| If your leg gets blown off, and the only help you're
| getting is from Gary, who claims a strong stomach and has
| used a needle kit before, for sewing closed your femoral
| artery, I reckon you're taking a swing.
|
| Are you sure the desperate don't deserve this attempt to
| help them? I can't imagine what it must be like to have
| such issues and have zero professional options to turn
| to, and you know what the solution for many is.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| What if your leg is just sore, and Gary swears it's
| actually been blown off and he needs to operate
| immediately?
| jasonhansel wrote:
| A bad therapist could be substantially worse than no
| treatment for mental health issues, particularly if
| people see it as more authoritative than it is.
| ancorevard wrote:
| Problem is that practitioners of mental health treatment
| themselves cause much damage today. This will not change
| that. Perhaps we're not too far from an LLM causing less
| damage than the _average_ mental health practitioner - with
| far more availability not to mention affordability.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| That's arguably for regulators to decide though, not
| technologists who have no exposure to the harm they cause.
| I can't even say "engineers" because engineers are held to
| a standard of care [1] that people slinging code are not.
| The fact that medical practitioners are sometimes wrong is
| not a legitimate means to wave away AI safety.
|
| In this instance, the solution isn't immature tech (that
| may [may!] one day be good tech), it's policy that enables
| healthcare access. You aren't going to fix that with LLMs.
| But, you know, that's what tech people keep doing. Poor
| tech solutions to people problems, and sometimes getting
| wealthy due to luck along the way.
|
| [1] https://docs.acec.org/pub/18803059-a2fd-2d06-cc39-a6d1d
| d5752...
| slashdev wrote:
| I see your "first do no harm" but I'll counter that it is
| probably better than the alternative, which is to do nothing.
| And it may lead to people seeking professional help. It's
| something for the unfilled gap in between, it's not a
| replacement for professional help.
| srackey wrote:
| This is in fact _not_ "absurdly dangerous". It may actually
| be safer than using a biological intelligence for the same
| purpose. Given that, and the shortage of biological mental
| health workers, it seems reasonable that many many more would
| suffer negative outcomes were they not allowed to use this
| tech. As such, I'd argue that _your comment_ is absurdly
| dangerous rhetoric, and your license to post on this web
| forum should be revoked.
| BTinfinity wrote:
| I did see one attempt[0] at creating a doctor from an LLM on
| Github. From their ReadMe.MD overview: "This is an open-source
| project with a mission to provide everyone their own private
| doctor"
|
| Hard not to agree with your edit0 as well; search engines often
| give doomsday diagnosis, how long before we're all
| hypochondriacs under the latest LLM cult?
|
| [0] https://github.com/llSourcell/DoctorGPT
| version_five wrote:
| My biggest concern with that would be that very quickly
| health authorities or insurance companies will force these on
| people and you'll be forced to interact with an LLM and not
| get to talk to a doctor for most stuff.
| tayo42 wrote:
| I don't see why it would be the worst thing as a first
| level thing to interact with, freeing up doctors for more
| important tasks or trickier individuals.
|
| How many people are showing up to doctors for bullshit,
| going to er for colds and mild flu's, or symptoms that
| can't be talked until tests are ordered
|
| Last time I went to the Dr, I waited two hours, I finally
| saw a nurse who took down my symptoms, ordered a test, and
| said a Dr will follow up,who just gave me some antibiotics
| for a couple of days before even taking the test.
|
| Why couldn't an llm take my symptoms, match it with similar
| tests needed and order the test automatically and have me
| leave with the same antibiotic?then follow up with a doctor
| when the lab is done.
|
| Same for yearly physicals, just have an llm order all the
| tests and I'll talk with the dr later.
|
| All sorts of low level stuff can be automated away.
| haldujai wrote:
| Zero chance with regulation. We still don't let machines
| final read ECGs and insurance companies pay a physician
| (typically a cardiologist) to overread them. These have
| been FDA approved algorithms for over a decade already.
| mellosouls wrote:
| Discussed here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37105352
| xigency wrote:
| It seems I'm only one of a few people who finds this area to be
| promising. Given that mental health care is expensive, that many
| people suffering are isolated with no one to talk to, and that
| talking to someone about your issues, whether or not they are a
| medical professional, is beneficial, I don't see why this
| shouldn't be pushed further. In terms of risk, as others have
| said, the Internet already exists filled with bad advice and TV
| has tons of poor medical content. Our apps and media have been
| hyper optimized by commercial interests in ways that are bad for
| mental health. Building these resources is the right thing to do,
| in my opinion.
| bpiche wrote:
| Tell that to the shareholders when your mental health bot tells
| a customer how to end their life. Maybe they intentionally
| jailbroke it because they wanted it to go off script, or it
| just hallucinated. Not going to matter very much when the stock
| craters.
| xigency wrote:
| This is a GitHub repo, not a NASDAQ corp. Shareholders'
| bottom line will never be my concern in the mental health
| space. If someone wants to build a startup in this space,
| they should organize it as a public benefit corporation, non-
| profit, or a co-op.
|
| In terms of outcomes, many people are put on hold calling the
| suicide hotline. In terms of pranks, the suggested one is
| criminal and would be prosecuted as such. In terms of
| accidents, yeah, if this were a product, it needs more
| fineprint and guardrails.
| bpiche wrote:
| Well, Headspace is doing it, and I'm pretty sure they're
| public. I think Ginger gave it a shot a year or two ago.
| Could go on.
|
| edit: Crunchbase says Headspace acquired Ginger recenty.
| Didn't realize Ginger was a YC company! Shame. Now I know
| why they wanted me to sign an NDA before talking to a
| recruiter.
| [deleted]
| bcjordan wrote:
| Author's writeup about the project:
| https://medium.com/@iamarunbrahma/fine-tuning-of-falcon-7b-l...
| thejackgoode wrote:
| Turning on reader view to read medium.com. How the turntables
| have ...
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| PLEASE _do not do this_. The field is far too new and the risk
| matrix of hallucinations are through the roof, ESPECIALLY with
| those who have mental illness.
|
| This is the sort of stuff that might get legislation passed on
| open source models or turn public opinion against them.
|
| Yes the USA's most powerful union is the AMA and yes they're the
| reason # of doctors are low and doctor salaries are skyhigh
| (especially compared to doctors in the rest of the world), but
| this is not the way to address the problem, at least not yet!
| omeze wrote:
| people are already doing this on Character.ai and other popular
| AI consumer products, whether the companies want them to or
| not. I think it's better to accept people want something here
| and make it good & transparent vs trying to avoid it... it's
| like alcohol, sometimes people want a thing badly enough they
| don't care if its bad for them
| m00x wrote:
| It's the 7B model, which is understood to be a toy model for
| fun experimentation across the industry and even hobbyists.
|
| I'm sure OP is not going to go out and treat patients with
| this. 7B barely produces sensical sentences most of the time.
| [deleted]
| kiratp wrote:
| Here is another perspective.
|
| The web is already FULL of bad medical information. Older folks
| treat it as gospel already. All this technology does is make
| both good and bad information more accessible.
|
| More importantly, there is NOTHING anyone can do to stop this.
| Nothing the US government can do will stop the proliferation of
| AI models that do everything including giving medical advice
| (or other things that we know it will screw up)
|
| "Dr. P<hil>" is still on TV.
|
| I take a pragmatic view on these things - assuming appeals to
| morality and ethics will fail, what do we do to educate people
| about this?
| bpiche wrote:
| Pretty cynical take. The world is already shit, what's
| another turd on the pile?
| throwing_away wrote:
| Perhaps the right take is to take every experiment to its
| extreme even if it's confusing.
|
| People have mostly learned photos can be edited. What we
| need are outlandish experiments and examples, and then
| media showing off how wild this technology is.
|
| Attempting to bubblewrap this tech both won't work and will
| lead to more confusion.
| [deleted]
| chaos_emergent wrote:
| Not only that, but the model was trained on _172 training
| examples_ - and the conversations aren 't remotely like the
| therapist conversations I've had in terms of nuance or topic.
| azinman2 wrote:
| It's just Q&A. To call this a chat is very misleading.
| iamarunbrahma wrote:
| This is a toy project. Hence, large-scale collection of data
| and pre-processing them into conversational format, also
| removing sensitive information is not possible. I was able to
| curate only 172 rows of data.
|
| I have shared a notebook and explained detailed steps in my
| blog - https://medium.com/@iamarunbrahma/fine-tuning-of-
| falcon-7b-l.... If you are interested to replicate the steps
| on medical-domain therapy chat transcripts, you are
| definitely welcome. If you face any issues during fine-tuning
| steps, you can connect with me on my blog. Would love to help
| out!
| thuuuomas wrote:
| > I was able to curate only 172 rows of data
|
| Skill issue - focus more on data integrity & less on HN
| clout
| SamPatt wrote:
| OP is sharing a personal project, he's not claiming he's
| solved the mental health crisis.
|
| This is Hacker News. These types of projects are half of
| the reason I come here, what's with the hate?
| drsamuel507 wrote:
| Oh!! So, you want every individual who post their github
| repo on HN; to collect dataset like billions of dollars
| funded startups and make a reliable chatbot which not a
| single well funded startup or listed NASDAQ companies
| could have done. I salute you.
| bpiche wrote:
| It is interesting. Sorry to pour so much cold water on the
| topic, it's more the application than the code that people
| have issue with.
|
| I wonder if retrieval augmented generation would be
| appropriate here too. Fast, scalable. Fine-tuning is
| comparatively pretty expensive.
|
| Thanks for sharing your code, iamarunbrahma.
| iamarunbrahma wrote:
| The purpose of this project was to showcase how can we
| fine-tune large models on a free-tier GPU provided by
| Colab. Hence, any individual can utilize parameter-
| efficient fine-tuning methods to tune LLMs on domain-
| specific datasets.
|
| RAG and fine-tuning serves a slightly different purpose.
| Fine-tuning helps LLM in learning a new task/skill such
| as question/answering task, summarization task etc, and
| improving reliability at producing a desired output such
| as JSON format structure thereby reducing dependency on
| prompt engineering.
|
| On the other hand, RAG provides you with external domain-
| specific knowledge, which one can leverage to get latest
| information.
| bpiche wrote:
| I see, thank you for the explanation. RAG is also
| appropriate for question/answering but I do see your
| point. Can see myself returning to your code for
| inspiration soon.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Thank goodness this is the topic of the top comment. Just
| reading the headline gave me a cold sweat in all the ways this
| could go wrong.
|
| I get people wanting to be FIRST in a space, but they seem to
| continuously be the people least needing to be first. Will this
| ever be something viable? maybe, but it definitely is not now.
| Yes, it can't get there without going through the growing
| pains, but let's work those pains out in less detrimental areas
| first. Areas with much less fallout when it does go wrong
| samtho wrote:
| This comment just reeks of gatekeeping and ludditism.
|
| How do you expect something to go from "toy" to "viable" if
| people are not stepping up to build upon the body of
| knowledge? A lot of people who have created innovative
| solutions were likely, by your definition, to be among the
| "least needed" people in a space.
|
| Maybe you would benefit by trying to understand why a
| harmless toy and proof-of-concept is so threatening.
| derbOac wrote:
| I think characterizing it as a "conversational" dataset could be
| seen as misleading in this area. Without reading about it, I'd
| expect it to be based on transcripts of therapy or intake
| sessions. I don't think wiki or FAQ websites are quite the same.
| iamarunbrahma wrote:
| I have pre-processed the dataset in a generic conversational
| format. It's not just raw scraped QnA from Wiki or FAQ's. For
| few questions which seemed sensitive, I added recommendations
| to consult a professional mental health care. Transcripts of
| therapy won't be reliable here because they might contain
| PII's, unwanted dialogues etc.
| derbOac wrote:
| So to be clear, it's good to see this kind of corpus/dataset.
|
| Just from professional experience, the way patients (and
| providers) approach discussion of issues is really different
| from the wiki/faq type-text. It tends to be much more
| idiosyncratic, sometimes indirect because patients don't
| recognize patterns, and is more "raw" and unfiltered.
|
| The privacy issues are huge to be sure though. I have done
| some related research on natural language modeling and
| understand it's difficult or impossible to separate out the
| identifying information from the rest of it, and gets worse
| as an information problem as size increases.
|
| I just personally might refer to the nature of this type of
| language dataset differently. I'm not sure what the right way
| of referring to it is though. I might just drop
| "conversational" or substitute "question" or "information" or
| something like that. I suppose in the end it doesn't matter
| much though -- people will figure out what it is.
| kordlessagain wrote:
| Either way, this is a good one for debate given the use is
| assumed to require careful attention to outputs. Giving
| someone with a mental health condition advice is fraught with
| peril, even in a clinical setting conducted by humans with
| vast experience.
|
| The transcripts of therapy sessions would be quite helpful
| for improved training of the model, given they contain logic
| that may not be present in the limited dataset provided. It
| would be a hope that these detailed interactions would
| provide improvement into the model's problem solving capacity
| for helping those with mental illness. As an example, for
| certain conditions the model may use a more cautious approach
| to investigation of the source of trauma.
|
| That's not to say therapy session transcripts should be used
| for prompt tuning after training, which exposes the data
| directly to the inference pipeline. However, we do know fine
| tuning the prompts with data is certainly useful for
| grounding, at the very least.
|
| I'm making the argument that using sensitive data in training
| is exactly what makes the model better, not filtered data
| that lacks the wide variety of "expertise" and "experience"
| that is contained in more sensitive datasets.
|
| If this were done, we can all reasonably assume that
| "sensitive data" will make its way into the tensors of the
| model, but the question is whether or not that information is
| more valuable for everyone's general use compared to the risk
| of outputting something that diminishes the value for an
| individual.
|
| I'm not proposing this is a good idea to do, but thinking
| about it is certainly worthwhile.
| freebsd709 wrote:
| Here are some of my perspectives on how mental health chatbot can
| be helpful:
|
| Chatbots can provide immediate support to a large number of
| people at any time, making mental health resources more
| accessible to those who might not have easy access to traditional
| therapy.
|
| Some individuals may feel more comfortable discussing their
| mental health with a chatbot due to the anonymity it offers,
| allowing them to open up about sensitive topics without fear of
| judgment.
|
| Conversational AI can contribute to normalizing conversations
| around mental health. When a widely used technology addresses
| these topics, it can help reduce the stigma associated with
| seeking help for mental health issues.
|
| Mental health struggles can arise at any time. Having a chatbot
| available 24/7 ensures that support is available even during non-
| business hours or emergencies.
| bpiche wrote:
| The term 'chatbot' has become hopelessly conflated with LLMs in
| only the last two years, but they're not the only 'chatbot'
| frameworks in town. Nor are they even properly chatbots in the
| sense that they can do real dialogue management, slot filling,
| intent classification, and reliable API calling.
|
| An actual chatbot framework like dialogflow or rasa would be
| more appropriate here. Even if the conversations feel more
| artificial, you have drastically more control over the flow of
| the conversation and the content of the responses.
|
| It's pitiful. The collective amnesia this community has.
| Havoc wrote:
| Surprised to see 172 items in training set. Is that sufficient
| scale for QLoRA? I had kinda assumed one needed 1000s
| mattew wrote:
| That blew my mind as well. I would have thought a much larger
| dataset would have been required.
| antupis wrote:
| If they are very good examples then less is more
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.11206
| swyx wrote:
| arguably it takes more effort/expertise to curate those
| examples than just pull in a bunch of data that roughly
| loosely covers the intended surface area. bitter lesson
| redux?
| sp332 wrote:
| Most QLoRAs only target attention layers. This gives pretty
| good performance for minimal processing time. But this one adds
| adapters to all linear layers. Also I'm not sure what a "step"
| is but they ran the whole dataset through at least twice.
| drsamuel507 wrote:
| I liked this project. But, could you please tell me what should
| we do if there is out of memory error due to memory issues?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-25 23:01 UTC)