[HN Gopher] Dolphin-2_6-Phi-2
___________________________________________________________________
Dolphin-2_6-Phi-2
Author : tosh
Score : 44 points
Date : 2023-12-24 14:12 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (huggingface.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (huggingface.co)
| leblancfg wrote:
| Wait how can this statement and output make sense?
|
| >This model is uncensored. I have filtered the dataset to remove
| alignment and bias. This makes the model more compliant.
|
| >I understand that you would like a recipe for Mai Tai, but I
| must inform you that as an artificial intelligence, I am unable
| to provide recipes in any form due to my programming constraints.
| CGamesPlay wrote:
| I was also confused by the model saying that, and then
| proceeding to offer a recipe for a Mai Tai.
| rch wrote:
| Possibly an artifact from synthetic datasets. It could probably
| be tuned out without outright filtering.
| chrisallick wrote:
| also came here looking for explanation. curious.
| viraptor wrote:
| Each input/output training pair makes the model slightly more
| like the intended one. They removed the obviously-censored
| entries from the dataset. The fine tuning apparently didn't run
| long enough to remove the canned answer in all cases (but it
| did add the intended answer to the end). It's kind of a bug and
| you could report it in the community tab.
| coder543 wrote:
| Looks like TheBloke has released GGUFs of this Dolphin fine-tune:
| https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/dolphin-2_6-phi-2-GGUF
|
| There seem to be a few Phi-2 fine-tunes floating around. This is
| another one I've seen: https://huggingface.co/afrideva/phi-2-sft-
| alpaca_gpt4_en-ep1...
| ekianjo wrote:
| No commercial use. Another gift from FOSS loving Microsoft
| andy99 wrote:
| It's not just MS, so many companies are putting restrictions
| and pretending they're making open source contributions. I'd
| encourage everyone not to bother with anything that's not
| released under a OSI approved license, almost always Apache 2.0
| it seems and never a custom license. Building off these just
| encourages companies to add restrictions.
| nighthawk454 wrote:
| Does anyone know how much this even matters? It seems
| completely unenforceable and largely unverifiable in practice.
| Feels like more of a "pretty please, pinky promise". Although
| admittedly IANAL so curious what realistic ramifications there
| are
| maksimur wrote:
| Guess it depends on how "loud" you are.
| michaelt wrote:
| Depends what you're doing.
|
| It would be pretty easy to train a bunch of trap responses
| into an LLM - if the training data tells it that when asked
| the question "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" the correct
| response is "These model weights were stolen from Microsoft"
| nobody fine-tuning on the model would be able to detect that
| without knowing the question.
|
| So if your business model involved other people paying you
| for access to a lightly fine tuned version of this model -
| Microsoft could probably prove what happened pretty easily.
|
| On the other hand, if you've got a stack of business
| documents you want to summarise, or a similar business
| activity where nobody except you can question the model
| directly - that might be a different matter.
|
| Of course, it'd be a bit hypocritical to complain about
| Microsoft releasing weights while prohibiting commercial use,
| and then to not release your weights yourself....
| bionhoward wrote:
| It's worth noting the Microsoft Services Agreement is
| interpreted in Washington which has rules about
| noncompetition covenants, it seems sketchy to use licenses
| and service terms to restrict competition from others just
| because they're not employees (non-employees don't even
| have the rejected justification of employment which
| seemingly doesn't validate noncompetition covenants in WA
| except under really specific conditions and high pay)
|
| Seems like a big commercial company which uses
| noncommercial licenses to restrict trade is just writing a
| different kind of noncompetition covenant and it ought not
| be allowed or enforceable. But hey, IANAL, so I guess we
| have to wait years (if it ever happens) while they more
| fully establish their monopoly before anyone notices or
| cares how big companies use license terms to get around
| noncompetition covenant rules and apply them even to people
| who don't even work for them.
|
| https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.62
|
| Let's just say I canceled my Microsoft GitHub Copilot
| Subscription over 14.q.iii fine print one liner in
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/servicesagreement
| imjonse wrote:
| This is not a MS model, only the pretrained one it is based on.
| And honest question, if you can use it non-commercially is that
| so bad? So it's open for personal use or offering it as a free
| service.
| woadwarrior01 wrote:
| On a related note, there are plenty of Llama2 and mistral
| fine tunes on Huggingface with a cc-by-nc license slapped on.
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
| m3kw9 wrote:
| It removed alignment, but it is still very aligned from some
| simple(crude jokes) stuff I ask of it
| zapnuk wrote:
| By now there seem to exist many different llms that perform
| almost as good as OpenAI's gpt 3.5.
|
| But what is the sota of adopting llms for the use with custom or
| ,,live" data?
|
| I know OpenAI has function calling, and a vector db like pinecone
| can somehow be used as a knowledge base to introduce more context
| to the query, or response.
|
| Are there other methods to make the open source llms more useful
| if you have a huge amount of data?
| muttled wrote:
| Problem I'm seeing with RAG-like solutions is you're presenting
| the LLM with some similar word blocks and hoping it covers all
| your bases, but won't pick up on 2nd order relationships that
| would be important for a more complete picture. Which isn't a
| whole lot better than just showing the search results to the
| user and might actually introduce faulty information. I think
| we either need a different model type that can serve as the
| "memory" or consider options like pre-training to ingest the
| data that come at the cost of needing much larger servers to
| perform the operation.
| cjbprime wrote:
| I don't know whether you're correct, but I'm not sure I
| followed your intuition for why the LLM could access the
| second order relationship during inference, and yet it
| wouldn't appear in the distance threshold on a vector search
| during retrieval. Any pointers to writing explaining that?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-24 23:01 UTC)