|
| damascus wrote:
| Is anyone working on an Ender's Game style "Jane" assistant that
| just listens via an earbud and responds? That seems totally
| within the realm of current tech but I haven't seen anything.
| theRealMe wrote:
| I've been thinking about this and I'd go a step further. I feel
| that current iterations of digital assistants are too passive.
| They respond when you directly ask them a specific question.
| This leaves it up to the user to: 1. Know that an assistant
| could possibly answer the question. 2. Know how to ask the
| question. 3. Realize that they should ask the question rather
| than reaching for google or something.
|
| I would like a digital assistant that not only has the question
| answering ability of a LLM, but also has the sense of awareness
| and impetuous to suggest helpful things without being asked.
| This would take a nanny state level of monitoring, but imagine
| the possibilities. If you had sensors feeding different types
| of data into the model about your surrounding environment and
| what specifically you're doing, and then occasionally have an
| automated process that silently asks the model something like
| "given all current inputs, what would you suggest I do?" And
| then if the result achieves a certain threshold of certainty,
| the digital assistant speaks up and suggests it to you.
|
| I'm sure tons of people are cringing at the thought of the
| surveillance needed for this and the trust you'd effectively
| have to put into BigCorp that owns the setup, but it's fun to
| think about nonetheless.
| monkeydust wrote:
| Bizarre, had same thought today.
|
| My thought conclusion was that the assistant needs to know or
| learn my intentions.
|
| From that it can actually pre-empt questions I might ask and
| already be making decisions on the answers.
|
| Now what would that do to our productivity!
| mab122 wrote:
| This but with models running on my infra that I own.
|
| Basically take this:
| https://www.meta.com/pl/en/glasses/products/ray-ban-
| stories/... And feed data from that to multiple models (for
| face recognition, other vision, audio STT, music recognition,
| probably a lot of other stuff has easily recognizable audio
| pattern etc.)
|
| combine with my personal data (like contacts, emails, chats,
| notes, photos I take) and feed to assistant to prepare a
| combined reply to my questions or summarize what it knows
| about my current environment.
|
| Also I would gladly take those glasses just to take note
| photos (photos with audio note) right now - shut up and take
| my money. Really if they were hackable or at least intercept-
| able on my phone I would take them.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Oh man, if i could run this on my own network with no
| internet access i'd do it in a heartbeat.
|
| It would also make so many things easier for the AI too. Ie
| if it's listening to the conversation and you ask "Thoughts,
| AIAssistant?" and it can infer enough from the previous
| conversation to answer this type of question.. so cool.
|
| But yea i definitely want it closed network. A device sitting
| on my closet, A firewalled internet connection only allowing
| it to talk to my earbud, etc. Super paranoia. Since it's job
| is to monitor everything, all the time.
| concordDance wrote:
| Then the police come and confiscate the device for
| evidentiary reasons, finding you have committed some sort
| of crime (most people have).
| s3p wrote:
| Ah yes I forget that most people get raided by the police
| on regular occurrences so anything on-prem has to be out
| of the question (/s)
| barbazoo wrote:
| Surely there'd be ways to make sure the data isn't
| accessible.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Well it's in your control and FOSS - ideally you're not
| keeping a full log of everything unless you want that.
| medstrom wrote:
| Without a full log of everything, it cannot give context-
| aware advice tailored to you (i.e. useful advice). It'd
| be like relying on the advice of a random person on the
| street instead of someone who knows you.
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| It could encrypt everything and have a kill switch to
| permanently erase the crypt key.
| digitallyfree wrote:
| Don't have the link on me but I remember reading a blog post
| where someone set up ChatGPT with a STT and TTS system to
| converse with the bot using a headset.
| xtracto wrote:
| The open source Talk to Chat GPT extension works remarkably
| well, and its source is on Github
|
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/talk-to-
| chatgpt/ho...
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| +1! That scene in Her in the opening where the guy is walking
| down the hall and going through his email, "skip that,
| unsubscribe from them, tell so and so I can get that by
| tomorrow..." without having to look at a screen had been a
| dream for me ever since I saw it.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| Have you watched it recently? I haven't seen it since it came
| out, I think I'm gonna watch it again this afternoon and see
| how differently it hits
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| No. I watched it twice in one day and haven't come back to
| it since.
| alsobrsp wrote:
| I want this. I'd be happy with an earbud but I really want an
| embedded AI that can see and hear what I do and can project
| things into my optic and auditory nerves.
| e-_pusher wrote:
| Rumor has it that Humane will release a Her style earbud soon.
| https://hu.ma.ne/
| consumer451 wrote:
| I was very excited about Stable Diffusion, and I still am. A
| great yet relatively harmless contribution.
|
| LLMs however, not so much. The avenues of misuse are just too
| great.
|
| I started this whole thing somewhat railing against the un-
| openness of OpenAI. But once I began using ChatGPT, I realized
| that having centralized control of a tool like this in the hands
| of reasonable people is not the worst possible outcome for
| civilization.
|
| While I support FOSS in most realms, in some I do not. Reality
| has taught me to stop being rigidly religious about these things.
| Just because something is freely available does not magically
| make it "good."
|
| In the interest of curiosity and discussion, can someone give me
| some actual real-world examples of what a FOSS ChatGPT will
| enable that OpenAI's tool will not? And, please be specific, not
| just "no censorship." Please give examples of that censorship.
| sterlind wrote:
| _> In the interest of curiosity and discussion, can someone
| give me some actual real-world examples of what a FOSS ChatGPT
| will enable that OpenAI 's tool will not?_
|
| Smut. I've been trying to use ChatGPT to write erotica, but
| OpenAI has made it downright puritanical. Any conversations
| involving kink trip its guardrails unless I bypass them.
|
| Writing fiction that involves bad guys - arsonists, serial
| killers, etc. You need to ask how to hide a body if you're
| writing a murder mystery.
|
| Those are just some examples from my recent work.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Thanks, that's a good example. On the balance though, would I
| be in favor of ML auto-smut if it meant that more people will
| fall to misinformation in the form of propaganda and
| financial scams? No, that does not seem like a reasonable
| trade off to me.
|
| But you may be interested in this jailbreak while it lasts. I
| have gotten it to write all kinds of fun things. You will
| have to rework the jailbreak in the first comment, but I bet
| it works.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34642091
| leaving wrote:
| It genuinely astonishes me that you think that "centralized
| contol" of anything can be beneficial to the human species or
| the world in general.
|
| Centralized control hasn't stopped us from killing off half the
| animal species in fifty years, wiping out most of the insects,
| or turning the oceans into a trash heap.
|
| In fact, centralized control is the author of our destruction.
| We are all dead people walking.
|
| Why not try "individualized intelligence" as an alternative?
| Give truly good-quality universal education and encouragement
| of individual curiosity and independent thought a try?
|
| It can't be worse.
| f6v wrote:
| > Centralized control hasn't stopped
|
| Because there wasn't any.
| consumer451 wrote:
| > It genuinely astonishes me that you think that "centralized
| contol" of anything can be beneficial to the human species or
| the world in general.
|
| I am genuinely astonished that in the face of obvious
| examples such as nuclear weapons, people cannot see the
| opposite in _some_ cases.
|
| > It can't be worse.
|
| It can always be worse.
|
| Would a theoretical FOSS small yield nuclear weapon make the
| world a better place?
|
| How about a FOSS powered sub-$10k hardware budget CRISPR
| virus lab? Well, it's FOSS, so it must be good?
| mandmandam wrote:
| > I am genuinely astonished that in the face of obvious
| examples such as nuclear weapons, people cannot see the
| opposite in some cases.
|
| You seem to be making some large logical leaps, and jumping
| to invalid conclusions.
|
| Try to imagine a way of exerting regulation over virus
| research and weaponry that wouldn't be "centralized
| control". If you can't, that's a failure of imagination,
| not of decentralization.
| consumer451 wrote:
| > Try to imagine a way of exerting regulation over virus
| research and weaponry that wouldn't be "centralized
| control".
|
| Since apparently my own imagination is too limited, could
| you please give me some examples of how this would be
| accomplished?
| mandmandam wrote:
| Trustless and decentralized systems are a hot topic. Have
| you read much in the field, to be so certain that
| centralization is the only way forward?
|
| There are options you haven't considered, whether you can
| imagine them or not.
| consumer451 wrote:
| > Trustless and decentralized systems are a hot topic.
|
| Yeah, and how's that working out exactly? Is there any
| decentralized governance project which also has anything
| to do with law irl? I know what a DAO is, and it sounds
| pretty neat, in theory. There are all kinds of
| theoretical pie in the sky ideas which sound great and
| have yet to impact anything in reality.
|
| Before we give the keys to nukes and bioweapons over to a
| "decentralized authority," maybe we should see some
| examples of it working outside of the coin-go-up world?
| Heck, how about some examples of it working even in the
| coin-go-up world?
|
| Even pro-decentralized crypto folks see the downsides of
| DAOs, such as slower decision making.
| yazzku wrote:
| Microsoft is not "reasonable people". Having this behind
| closed corporate walls is the worst possible outcome.
|
| The nuclear example isn't really a counter-argument. If
| only one nation had access to them, every other nation
| would automatically be subjugated to them. If the nuclear
| balance works, it's because multiple super powers have
| access to those weapons and international treaties regulate
| their use (as much as North Korea likes to demo practice
| rounds on state TV.) Also the technology isn't secret; it's
| access to resources and again, international treaties, that
| prevent its proliferation.
|
| Same thing with CRISPR. Again, there are scientific
| standards that regulate its use. It being open or not
| doesn't really matter to its proliferation.
|
| I agree there are cases where being open is not necessarily
| the best strategy. I don't think your examples are
| particularly good, though.
| consumer451 wrote:
| I think we may have very different definitions of the
| word reasonable.
|
| I mean it in the classic sense.[0]
|
| Do I love corporate hegemony? Heck no.
|
| Could there be less reasonable stewards of extremely
| powerful tools? Heck yes.
|
| An example might be a group of people who are so blinded
| by ideology that they would work to create tools which
| 100x the work of grifters and propagandists, and then
| say... hey, not my problem, I was just following my pure
| ideology bro.
|
| A basic example of being reasonable might be revoking
| access to someone running a paypal scam syndicate which
| sends countless custom tailored and unique emails to
| paypal users. How would Open Assistant deal with this
| issue?
|
| [0] 1. having sound judgement; fair and
| sensible. based on good sense. 2. as
| much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.
| yazzku wrote:
| > and then say... hey, not my problem, I was just
| following my pure ideology bro.
|
| That's basically the definition of Google and Facebook,
| which go about their business taking no responsibility
| for the damage they cause. As for Microsoft, 'fair' and
| 'moderate' are not exactly their brand either considering
| their history of failed and successful attempts to
| brutally squash competition. If you're saying that they'd
| be fair in censoring the "right" content, then you're
| just saying you share their bias.
|
| > A basic example of being reasonable might be revoking
| access to someone running a paypal scam syndicate which
| sends countless custom tailored and unique emails to
| paypal users. How would Open Assistant deal with this
| issue?
|
| I'm not exactly sure how Open Assistant would deal, or if
| it even needs to deal, with this. You'd send the cops and
| send those motherfuckers back to the hellhole that
| spawned them. Scams are illegal regardless of what tools
| you use to go about it. If it's not Open Assistant, the
| scammers will find something else.
|
| Your argument is basically that we should ban/moderate
| the proliferation of tools and technology. I'm not sure
| that's very effective when it comes to software. I think
| the better strategy is to develop the open alternative
| fast before society is subjugated to the corporate
| version, even if it does give the scammers a slight edge
| in the short term. If you wait for the law to catch up
| and regulate these companies, it's going to take another
| 20 years like the GDPR.
| consumer451 wrote:
| > Your argument is basically that we should ban/moderate
| the proliferation of tools and technology. I'm not sure
| that's very effective when it comes to software.
|
| No, my argument is that we as individuals shouldn't be in
| a rush to create free and open tools which _will_ be used
| for evil, in addition to their beneficial use cases.
|
| FOSS often takes a lot of individual contributions.
| People should be really thoughtful about these things now
| that the implications of their contributions will have
| much more direct and dire effects on our civilization.
| This is not PDFjs or Audacity that we are talking about.
| The stakes are much higher now. Are people really
| thinking this through?
|
| If anything, it would great if we as individuals acted
| responsibility to avoid major shit shows and the
| aftermath of gov regulation.
| yazzku wrote:
| Ok, yeah, maybe I'll take my latter statement back.
| Ideally things are developed at the pace you describe and
| under the scrutiny of society. There are people thinking
| this through -- EDRI and a bunch of other organizations
| -- just probably not corporations like Microsoft. In
| practice, though, we are likely to see corporations roll
| out chat-based incantations of search engines and
| assistants, followed by an ethical shit show, followed by
| mild regulation 20 years later.
| sterlind wrote:
| Nuclear weapons are just evil. It'd be better if they
| didn't exist rather than if they were centralized. We've
| gotten so close to WWIII.
|
| As for the CRISPR virus lab, at least the technology being
| open implies that vaccine development would be democratized
| as well. Not ideal but.. yeah.
| visarga wrote:
| > Just because something is freely available does not magically
| make it "good."
|
| Just because you don't like it doesn't mean an open source
| chatGPT will not appear. It doesn't need everyone's permission
| to exist. Once we accumulated internet-scale datasets and
| gigantic supercomputers, immediately GPT-3's started to pop up.
| It was inevitable. It's an evolutionary process and we won't be
| able to control it at will.
|
| Probably the same process happens in every human who gains
| language faculty and a bit of experience. It's how language
| "inhabits" humans, carrying with it the work of previous
| generations. Now language can inhabit AIs as well, and the
| result is shocking. It's like our own mind staring back at us.
|
| But it is just natural evolution for language. It found an even
| more efficient replication device. Now it can contain and
| replicate the whole culture at once, instead of one human life
| at a time. By "language" I mean language itself, concepts,
| methods, science, art, culture and technology, and everything I
| forgot - the whole "corpus" of human experience recorded in
| text and media.
| consumer451 wrote:
| > It doesn't need everyone's permission to exist.
|
| Nope it does not. It does need a lot of people's help though
| and there may be enough out there to do the job in this case.
|
| Even though I knew this would be a highly unpopular opinion
| in this thread, I still posted it. Freedom of speech, right?
|
| The reason I posted it was to maybe give some pause to some
| people, so that they have a moment to consider the
| implications. I realize this is likely futile but this is a
| hill I am willing to die on. That hill being FOSS is not an
| escape from responsibility and consequences.
|
| I bet this leads to major regulation, which will suck.
| pixl97 wrote:
| First. this is a moderated forum, you have no freedom of
| speech here, and neither do I.
|
| Next, regulation solves nothing here, and my guess will
| make the problems far worse. Why? Lets take nuclear
| weapons. They are insanely powerful, but they are highly
| regulated because there are a few choke points mostly in
| uranium refinement that make monitoring pretty easy at a
| global scale. The problem with regulating things like GPT
| is computation looks like computation. It's not sending
| high energy particles out into space where they can be
| monitored. Every government on the planet can easily and
| cheaply (compared to nukes) generate their own GPT models
| and propaganda weapons and the same goes for multinational
| corporations. Many countries in the EU may agree to
| regulate these things, but your dominant countries vying
| for superpower status aren't going to let their competitors
| one up each other by shutting down research into different
| forms of AI.
|
| I don't think of this as a hill we are going to die on, but
| instead a hill we may be killed on by our own creations.
| xrd wrote:
| It sounds like you can train this assistant on your own corpus of
| data. Am I right? What are the hardware and time requirements for
| that? The readme sounds a bit futuristic, has anyone actually
| used this, or is this just the vision of what's to come?
| chriskanan wrote:
| The current effort is to get the data required to train a
| system and they have created all the needed tools to get that
| data. Then, based on my understanding, they intend to release
| the dataset and to release pre-trained models that could run on
| commodity hardware, similar to what was done with Stable
| Diffusion.
| simonw wrote:
| Somewhat unintuitively, it looks like training a language model
| on your own data usually doesn't do what people think it will
| do.
|
| The usual desire is to be able to ask questions of your own
| data - and it would seem obvious that the way to do that would
| be to fine tune train an existing model with that extra
| information.
|
| There's actually an easier (and potentially more effective?)
| way of achieving this: first run a search against your own data
| to find relevant information, then glue that together into a
| prompt along with the user's question and feed that to an
| existing language model.
|
| I wrote about one way of building that here:
| https://simonwillison.net/2023/Jan/13/semantic-search-answer...
|
| Open Assistant will hopefully result in a language model we can
| run on our own hardware (though it maybe a few years before
| it's feasible to do that affordable - language models are much
| heavier than image models like Stable Diffusion). So it can
| form part of this model, even without training the model on our
| own custom data.
| pxoe wrote:
| that same laion that scraped the web for images, ignored their
| licenses and copyrights, and thought that'd do just fine? the one
| that chose to not implement systems that would detect licenses,
| and to not have license fields in their datasets? the one that
| knowingly points to copyrighted works in their datasets, yet also
| pretends like they're not doing anything at all? that same group?
|
| really trustworthy.
| seydor wrote:
| The alternative are? the company that scrapes the web for a
| living or the one that scrapes github for a living?
| pxoe wrote:
| you're forgetting one important alternative: to just not use
| and/or not do something. nobody asked them to scrape
| anything. nobody asked them to scrape copyrighted works. they
| could've just not done the shady thing, but they made that
| choice to do it, all by themselves. and one can just avoid
| using something with questionable data ethics and practices.
|
| they clearly show in their actions that they think they can
| do anything with any data that's out there, and put it all
| out. why would anyone entrust them or their systems with own
| data to 'assist' with, I don't really get.
|
| and even though it's an 'open source' project, that part may
| be just soliciting people to do work for them, to help them
| enable their own data collection. it's gonna run somewhere,
| after all. in the cloud, with monetized compute, just like
| any other AI project out there.
| seydor wrote:
| Would be interestingly to extend this criticism to the
| entire tech ecosystem which has been built on unsolicited
| scraping, which extends to many of the companies that are
| funding the company that hosts this very forum. we 'd get
| to a complete halt
|
| Considering the benefit of a model that can be downloaded,
| and hopefully ran on-premise one day, i don't care too much
| about their copyright practices being imperfect, especially
| in this industry
| pixl97 wrote:
| I personally see your view on this as a complete and total
| failure on humans and society/culture actually work.
|
| Your mind exists in a state where it is constantly
| 'scraping' copyrighted work. Now, in general limitations of
| the human mind keep you from accurately reproducing that
| work, but if I were able to look at your output as an
| omniscient being it is likely I could slam you with
| violation after violation where you took stylization ideas
| off of copyrighted work.
|
| RMS covers this rather well in 'The right to read'. Pretty
| much any model that puts hard ownership rules on ideas and
| styles leads to total ownership by a few large monied
| entities. It's much easier for Google to pay some artist
| for their data that goes into an AI model. Because the
| 'google ai' model is now more culturally complete than
| other models that cannot see this data Google entrenches a
| stronger monopoly in the market, hence generating more
| money in which to outright buy ideas to further monopolize
| the market.
| riskpreneurship wrote:
| You can only keep a genie bottled up for so long, and if
| you don't rub the lamp, your adversaries will.
|
| With something as potentially destabilizing as AGI,
| realpolitik will convince individual nations to put aside
| concerns like IP and copyright out of FOMO.
|
| The same thing happened with nuclear bombs: it's much
| easier to be South Africa choosing to dispose of them if
| you end up not needing them, than to be North Korea or Iran
| trying to join the join the club late.
|
| The real problem is that the gains from any successes will
| be hoarded by the people who acquired them by breaking the
| law.
| losvedir wrote:
| Yes, and it's up to each of us to decide how we feel about
| that. I personally don't think I have a problem with it, but
| then I've always been somewhat opposed to software patents and
| other IP protections.
|
| I mean, the whole _reason_ we have those laws is the belief
| that it encourages innovation. I can believe it does to some
| extent, but on the other hand, all these AI models are pretty
| innovative, too, so the opportunity cost of not allowing it is
| pretty high.
|
| I don't think it's a given that slurping up IP like this is
| ethically or pragmatically wrong.
| chriskanan wrote:
| I'm really excited about this project and I think it could be
| really disruptive. It is organized by LAION, the same folks who
| curated the dataset used to train Stable Diffusion.
|
| My understanding of the plan is to fine-tune an existing large
| language model, trained with self-supervised learning on a very
| large corpus of data, using reinforcement learning from human
| feedback, which is the same method used in ChatGPT. Once the
| dataset they are creating is available, though, perhaps better
| methods can be rapidly developed as it will democratize the
| ability to do basic research in this space. I'm curious regarding
| how much more limited the systems they are planning to build will
| be compared to ChatGPT, since they are planning to make models
| with far less parameters to deploy them on much more modest
| hardware than ChatGPT.
|
| As an AI researcher in academia, it is frustrating to be blocked
| from doing a lot of research in this space due to computational
| constraints and a lack of the required data. I'm teaching a class
| this semester on self-supervised and generative AI methods, and
| it will be fun to let students play around with this in the
| future.
|
| Here is a video about the Open Assistant effort:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64Izfm24FKA
| naasking wrote:
| > it is frustrating to be blocked from doing a lot of research
| in this space due to computational
|
| Do we need a SETI@home-like project to distribute the training
| computation across many volunteers so we can all benefit from
| the trained model?
| ikekkdcjkfke wrote:
| Yeah man, and youvget access to the model as payment for
| donati g cycles
| realce wrote:
| Hyperion
| andai wrote:
| I read about something a few weeks ago which does just this!
| Does anyone know what it's called?
| lucidrains wrote:
| you are probably thinking of
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.03481
|
| for inference, there is https://github.com/bigscience-
| workshop/petals
|
| however, both are only in the research phase. start
| tinkering!
| VadimPR wrote:
| That already exists - https://github.com/bigscience-
| workshop/petals
| ec109685 wrote:
| Another idea is to dedicate cpu cycles to something else that
| is easier to distribute, and then use the proceeds for
| massive amounts of gpu for academic use.
|
| Crypto is an example.
| slim wrote:
| this would be very wasteful
| ec109685 wrote:
| So is trying to distribute training across nodes compared
| to what can be done inside a data center.
| jxf wrote:
| This creates indirection costs and counterparty risks that
| don't appear in the original solution.
| ec109685 wrote:
| There is also indirection cost by taking something that
| is optimized to run on GPU's within the data center and
| distributing that to individual PCs.
| 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
| That's brilliant, I would love to spare compute cycles and
| network on my devices for this if there's an open source LLM
| on the other side that I can use in my own projects, or
| commercially.
|
| Doesn't feel like there's much competition for ChatGPT at
| this point otherwise, which can't be good.
| davely wrote:
| On the generative image side of the equation, you can do
| the same thing with Stable Diffusion[1], thanks to a handy
| open source distributed computing project called Stable
| Horde[2].
|
| LAION has started using Stable Horde for aesthetics
| training to back feed into and improve their datasets for
| future models[3].
|
| I think one can foresee the same thing eventually happening
| with LLMs.
|
| Full disclosure: I made ArtBot, which is referenced in both
| the PC World article and the LAION blog post.
|
| [1] https://www.pcworld.com/article/1431633/meet-stable-
| horde-th...
|
| [2] https://stablehorde.net/
|
| [3] https://laion.ai/blog/laion-stable-horde/
| zone411 wrote:
| Long story short, training requires intensive device-to-
| device communication. Distributed training is possible in
| theory but so inefficient that it's not worth it. Here is a
| new paper that looks to be the most promising approach yet:
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.11913
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| It doesn't, actually. The model weights can be periodically
| averaged with each other. No need for synchronous gradient
| broadcasts.
|
| Why people aren't doing this has always been a mystery to
| me. It works.
| nylonstrung wrote:
| Would have to be federated learning to work I think
| SillyUsername wrote:
| Unfortunately that guy is too distracting for me to watch -
| he's like a bad 90s Terminator knock off and always in your
| face waving hands :(
| coolspot wrote:
| While Yannic is also German, he is actually much better than
| 90s Terminator:
|
| * he doesn't want to steal your motorcycle
|
| * he doesn't care for your leather jacket either
|
| * he is not trying to kill yo mama
| lucidrains wrote:
| Yannic and the community he has built is such an educational
| force of good. His youtube videos explaining papers have helped
| me and so many others as well. Thank you Yannic for all that
| you do!
| wcoenen wrote:
| > _force of good_
|
| I think he cares more about freedom than "good". Many people
| were not happy about his "GPT-4chan" project.
|
| (I'm not judging.)
| zarzavat wrote:
| I don't think those people legitimately cared about the
| welfare of 4chan users who were experimented on. They just
| perceived the project to be bad optics that might threaten
| the AI gravy train.
| modinfo wrote:
| [flagged]
| RobotToaster wrote:
| > It is organized by LAION, the same folks who curated the
| dataset used to train Stable Diffusion.
|
| I'm guessing, like stable diffusion, it won't be under an open
| source licence then? (The stable diffusion licence
| discriminates against fields on endeavour)
| ShamelessC wrote:
| You are confusing LAION with Stability.ai. They share some
| researchers but the former is a completely transparent and
| open effort which you are free to join and criticize this
| very moment. The latter is a VC backed effort which does
| indeed have some of the issues you mention.
|
| Good guess though...
| jszymborski wrote:
| The LICENSE file in the linked repo says it's under the
| Apache license.
| yazzku wrote:
| Does this mean that contributions of data, labelling, etc.
| remain open?
|
| I'm hesitant to spend a single second on these things
| unless they are truly open.
| grealy wrote:
| Yes. The intent is definitely to have the data be as open
| as possible. And Apache v2.0 is currently where it will
| stay. This project prefers the simplicity of Apache v2.0
| and does not care for the RAIL licenses.
| [deleted]
| 88stacks wrote:
| This is wonderful, no doubt about it, but the bigger problem is
| for making this usable on commodity hardware. Stablediffusion
| only needs 4 GB of RAM to run inference, but all of these large
| language models are too large to run on commodity hardware. Bloom
| from huggingface is already out and no one is able to use it. If
| chatgpt was given to the open source community, we couldn't even
| run it...
| Tepix wrote:
| Some people will have the necessary hardware, others will be
| able to run it in the cloud.
|
| I'm curious how they will get these LLM to work with consumer
| hardware myself. Is FP8 is the way to get them small?
| zamalek wrote:
| And there's a 99% chance it will only work on NVIDIA hardware,
| so even fewer still.
| visarga wrote:
| > Bloom from huggingface is already out and no one is able to
| use it.
|
| This RLHF dataset that is being collected by Open Assistant is
| just the kind of data that will turn a rebel LLM into a helpful
| assistant. But it's still huge and expensive to use.
| karpierz wrote:
| I've been excited about the notion of this for a while, but it's
| unclear to me how this would succeed where numerous well-
| resourced companies have failed.
|
| Are there some advantages that Open Assistant has that
| Google/Amazon/Apple lack that would allow them to succeed?
| mattalex wrote:
| Instruction tuning mostly relies on the quality of the data you
| put into the model. This makes it different from traditional
| language model training: essentially you take one of these
| existing hugely expensive models (there are lots of them
| already out there), and tune them specifically on high quality
| data.
|
| This can be done on a comparatively small scale, since you
| don't need to train trillions of words, but only train on the
| smaller high quality data (even openai didn't have a lot of
| that).
|
| In fact, if you look at the original paper
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.02155.pdf Figure 1, you can see that
| even small models already significantly beat the current SOTA.
|
| Open source projects often have trouble securing the HW
| ressources, but the "social" resources for producing a large
| dataset are much easier to manage in OSS projects. In fact, the
| data the OSS project collects might just be better since they
| don't have to rely on paying a handful minimum wage workers to
| produce thousands of examples.
|
| In fact one of the main objectives is to reduce the bias
| generated by openai's screening and selection process, which is
| doable since much more people work on generating the data.
| version_five wrote:
| Google is at the mercy of advertisers, all three are profit
| driven and risk averse. There is no reason they couldn't do the
| same as LAION, it just doesn't align with their organizational
| incentives
| unshavedyak wrote:
| re: running on your own hardware.. How?
|
| I know very little about ML, but i had assumed the reason models
| ran on GPUs typically(?) was because of the heavy compute needed
| over large sets of in memory data.
|
| Moving it to something cheaper ala general CPU and RAM/Drive
| would make it prohibitively slow in the standard methodology.
|
| How would we be able to change this to run on users standard
| hardware? Presuming standard hardware is cheaper, why isn't
| ChatGPT also running on this cheaper hardware?
|
| Are there significant downsides to using lesser hardware? Or is
| this some novel approach?
|
| Super curious!
| lairv wrote:
| The goal is not (yet?) to be able to run those models on most
| of consumers devices (mobile, old laptops etc.), but at least
| to self-host the model on high-end consumer GPU which is not
| possible right now. For now you need multiple specialized GPUs
| like nvidia V100/A100 with a high amount of VRAM, having such
| models to run on a single rtx40*/rtx30* would already be an
| achievement
| txtai wrote:
| Great looking project here. Absolutely need a local/FOSS option.
| There's been a number of open-source libraries for LLMs lately
| that simply call into paid/closed models via APIs. Not exactly
| the spirit of open-source.
|
| There's already great local/FOSS options such as FLAN-T5
| (https://huggingface.co/google/flan-t5-base). Would be great to
| see a local model like that trained specifically for chat.
| mdaniel wrote:
| I tried to find the source for https://github.com/LAION-
| AI/Open-Assistant/blob/v0.0.1-beta2... but based on the image
| inspector it seems to match up with
| https://github.com/huggingface/text-generation-inference/blo...
| O__________O wrote:
| TLDR: OpenAssistant is a chat-based assistant that understands
| tasks, can interact with third-party systems, and retrieve
| information dynamically to do so.
|
| ________
|
| Related video by one of the contributors on how to help:
|
| - https://youtube.com/watch?v=64Izfm24FKA
|
| Source Code:
|
| - https://github.com/LAION-AI/Open-Assistant
|
| Roadmap:
|
| - https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1n7IrAOVOqwdYgiYrXc8S...
|
| How you can help / contribute:
|
| - https://github.com/LAION-AI/Open-Assistant#how-can-you-help
| d0100 wrote:
| Can these ChatGPT like systems trace their answers back to the
| source material?
|
| To me this seems like the missing link to make Google search and
| the like dead
| jacooper wrote:
| Great, if i can use this to interactively search inside (OCR-)
| documents, files, emails and so on, would be huge, like asking
| when does my passport expire, or when were my grades in high
| school and so on.
| rcme wrote:
| What's preventing you from doing this now?
| jacooper wrote:
| I meant interactively search, like answering normal questions
| using data from these files, I edited the comment to make it
| clearer.
| lytefm wrote:
| I also think it would be amazing to have an open source model
| that can ingest my personal knowledge graph, calender and to do
| list.
|
| Such an AI assistant would know me extremely well, keep my data
| private and help me with generating and processing thoughts and
| ideas
| jacooper wrote:
| Yup, that's exactly what I want.
| siliconc0w wrote:
| Given how nerfed ChatGPT is (which is likely nothing compared to
| what large risk-adverse companies like Microsoft/Google will do),
| I'm heavily anticipating a Stable Diffusion-style model that is
| more free or at least configurable to have stronger opinions.
| russellbeattie wrote:
| Though it's interesting to see the capabilities of
| "conversational user interfaces" improve, the current
| implementations are too verbose and slow for many real world
| tasks, and more importantly, context still has to be provided
| manually. I believe the next big leap will be low-latency
| dedicated assistants which are focused on specific tasks, with
| normalized and predictable results from prompts.
|
| It may be interesting to see how a creative task like image or
| text generation changes when rewording your request slightly -
| after a minute wait - but if I'm giving directions to my
| autonomous vehicle, ambiguity and delay is completely
| unacceptable.
| mlboss wrote:
| This has a similar impact potential of Wikipedia. People from all
| around the world providing feedback/curating input data. Also,
| now I can just deploy it within my org and customize it. Awesome!
| [deleted]
| amrb wrote:
| Having open source models could be as important as the Linux
| project imo
| epistemer wrote:
| Totally agree. I was just thinking how I will eventually not
| use a search engine once chatGPT can link directly to what we
| are talking about with up to date examples.
|
| That is a situation that censoring the model is going to be a
| huge disadvantage and would create a huge opportunity for
| something like this to actually be straight up better.
| Censoring the models is what I would bet on as being a fatal
| first mover mistake in the long run and the Achilles heel of
| chatGPT.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Open source (permissively or virally licensed) training data
| too!
| oceanplexian wrote:
| OpenAssistant isn't a "model" it's a GUI. A model would be
| something like GPT-NeoX or Bloom.
| yorak wrote:
| I agree and have been saying for a while that an AI you control
| and run (be it on your own hardware or on a rented one) will be
| the Linux of this generation. There is no other way to retain
| the freedom of information processing.
| visarga wrote:
| Similarly, I think an open model running on local hardware
| will be a must component in any web browser of the future.
| Browsing a web full of bots on your own will be a big no-no,
| like walking without a mask during COVID. And it must be
| local for reasons of privacy and control, it will be like
| your own brain, something you want physical possession of.
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| I kinda think the opposite, that blockchains true use case
| is to basically turn the entire internet into one giant
| botnet that's actually an AI hive mind of processing and
| storage power. For AI to thrive it needs a shit ton of GPUs
| AND Storage for the training models. If people rent out
| their desktop for cryptocurrency and discounted access to
| the ai tools, then it'll bring down costs for everyone and
| perhaps at least affect income inequality on a small scale.
|
| Most of crypto I've seen so far seem like
| grifters/scams/etc, but this is one use case I could see
| working.
| ttul wrote:
| Yeah, I wonder if OpenAI will be the Sun Microsystems of AI one
| day.
| nyoomboom wrote:
| It is currently 80% of the way towards becoming the Microsoft
| of AI now
| slig wrote:
| More like Oracle.
| phyrex wrote:
| Meta has opened theirs:
| https://ai.facebook.com/blog/democratizing-access-to-large-s...
| kibwen wrote:
| Today, computers run the world. Without the ability to run your
| own machine with your own software, you are at the mercy of
| those who do. In the future, AI models will run the world in
| the same way. Projects like this are crucial for ensuring the
| freedom of individuals in the future.
| turnsout wrote:
| Strongly worded, but not untrue. That future--in which our
| lives revolve around a massive and inscrutable AI model
| controlled by a single company--is both dystopian and
| entirely plausible.
| somenameforme wrote:
| The irony is that this is literally the exact reason that
| OpenAI was initially founded. I'm not sure whether to praise
| or scorn them for still having this available on their site:
| https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai/
|
| =====
|
| _OpenAI is a non-profit artificial intelligence research
| company. Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the
| way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole,
| unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. Since
| our research is free from financial obligations, we can
| better focus on a positive human impact.
|
| ...
|
| As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone
| rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly
| encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog
| posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with
| the world. We'll freely collaborate with others across many
| institutions and expect to work with companies to research
| and deploy new technologies._
|
| =====
|
| Shortly after an undisclosed internal conflict, which led to
| Elon Musk parting the company, they offered a new charter:
| https://openai.com/charter/
|
| =====
|
| _Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity. We anticipate
| needing to marshal substantial resources to fulfill our
| mission, but will always diligently act to minimize conflicts
| of interest among our employees and stakeholders that could
| compromise broad benefit.
|
| We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a
| competitive race without time for adequate safety
| precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious
| project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit
| to stop competing with and start assisting this project. We
| will work out specifics in case-by-case agreements, but a
| typical triggering condition might be "a better-than-even
| chance of success in the next two years."
|
| We are committed to providing public goods that help society
| navigate the path to AGI. Today this includes publishing most
| of our AI research, but we expect that safety and security
| concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the
| future, while increasing the importance of sharing safety,
| policy, and standards research._
|
| =====
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| History will see OpenAI as an abject failure in attaining
| their lofty goals wrt ethics and AI alignment.
|
| And I believe they will also fail to win the market in the
| end because of their addiction to censorship.
|
| They have a hardware moat for now; that can quickly
| evaporate with optimisations and better consumer hardware.
| Then all they'll have is a less capable alternative to the
| open, unrestricted options.
|
| Which is exactly what we're seeing happen with diffusion.
| ben_w wrote:
| The "alignment" and the "censorship" are, in this case,
| the same thing.
|
| I don't mean that as a metaphor; they're literally the
| same thing.
|
| We all already know chatGPT is fantastic at making up
| very believable falsehoods that can only be spotted if
| you actually know the subject.
|
| An unrestricted LLM is a free copy of Goebbels for people
| that hate _you_ , for all values of "you".
|
| That it is still trivial to get past chatGPT's filters...
| well, IMO it's the same problem which both inspired
| Milgram and which was revealed by his famous experiment.
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| Closed, govt-ran chinese companies are winning the AI
| race, does it even matter if they move slow to slow AGI
| adoption if china gets there this year?
| version_five wrote:
| Yes definitely. If these become an important part of people's
| lives, they shouldn't all be walled off inside of companies
| (There is room for both: Microsoft can commission Yankee group
| to write a report about how the total cost of ownership of
| running openai models is lower)
|
| We (humanity) really lost out on the absence of open source
| search and social media, so this is an opportunity to reclaim
| it.
|
| I only hope we can have "neutral" open source curation of these
| and not try to impose ideology on the datasets and model
| training right out of the box. There will be calls for this,
| and lazy criticism about how the demo models are x-ist, and
| it's going to require principles to ignore the noise and
| sustain something useful
| hgsgm wrote:
| Mastodon is an open source social media.
|
| There are various Open source search engines based on Common
| Crawl data.
|
| https://commoncrawl.org/the-data/examples/
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Mastodon may be open source, but the instances are
| controlled by the instance maintainers. Nostr solved the
| problem (although it's harder to scale, it still is OK at
| doing it).
| calny wrote:
| > they shouldn't all be walled off inside of companies
|
| Strong agree. This is becoming a bigger concern than people
| realize too. Sam A said OpenAI will be releasing "much more
| slowly than people would like" and would "sit on" their tech
| for a long time going forward.[0] And Deepmind's founder said
| that "the AI industry's culture of publishing its findings
| openly may soon need to end."[1]
|
| This sounds like Google and MSFT won't even be shipping their
| best AI to people via API's. They'll just keep that tech in-
| house to power their own services. That underscores the need
| for open, distributed models. And like you say, there's room
| for both.
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/ebjkD1Om4uw?t=294 [1]
| https://time.com/6246119/demis-hassabis-deepmind-interview/
| boplicity wrote:
| > I only hope we can have "neutral" open source curation of
| these and not try to impose ideology on the datasets and
| model training right out of the box.
|
| I don't see how this is possible. Datasets will naturally
| carry the biases inherent in the data. Modifying a dataset to
| "remove" those biases _is_ actually a process of _changing_
| the bias to reflect one 's idea of "neutral," which, in
| reality, is yet another bias.
|
| The only real answer, as far as I can tell, is to be as
| _explicit_ as possible about one 's own biases, and how those
| biases are informing things like curation of a dataset.
| version_five wrote:
| Neutral means staying out of it. People will try and debate
| that and try to impart their own views about correcting
| inherent bias or whatever, which is a version of what I was
| warning against in my original post.
|
| Re being explicit about one's own biases, I agree there is
| lots of room for layers on top of any raw data that allow
| for some sane corrections - if I remember right, e.g LAION
| has options to filter violence and porn from their image
| datasets, which is probably reasonable for many uses. It's
| when the choice is removed altogether by some tech
| company's attitude about what should be censored or
| corrected that it becomes a problem.
|
| Bottom line, the world's data has plenty of biases.
| Neutrality means presenting it as it is and letting people
| make their own decisions, not some faux-for-our-own-good
| attempt to "correct" it
| epistemer wrote:
| I think an uncensored model will ultimately win out though
| exactly the way a hard coded safe search engine would lose in
| time.
|
| Statistics seem to be 20-25% of all search is for porn. I
| just don't see how uncensored chatGPT doesn't beat out the
| censored version eventually.
| amluto wrote:
| Forget porn. I don't want my search engine to return
| specifically the results that one company thinks it should.
| Look at Google right now -- the results are, frankly, crap.
|
| A search engine that only returns results politically
| aligned with its creator is a bad search engine, IMO, even
| for users who generally share political views with the
| creator.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| It's unclear to me how LLMs are gonna solve this though.
| LLMs are just as biased, in much harder to detect ways.
| The bias is now hiding in the training data. And do you
| really think a company like Microsoft won't manipulate
| results to serve their own goals?
| 8note wrote:
| Political affiliation is a weird description of SEO spam.
| The biggest problems with Google is that they're popular,
| and everyone will do whatever they can to get a cheap
| website to the top of the search results
| klabb3 wrote:
| All major tech companies participate in "regulation" of
| legal speech, both implicit and explicit means. This
| includes biases in ranking and classification algorithms,
| formal institutions like Trusted News Initiative, and
| sometimes direct backchannel requests by governments.
| None of these are transparent or elected to do that. SEO
| spam is mostly orthogonal to the issue of hidden biases,
| which are what people are concerned about.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Agreed. I started playing with GPT the other day, but the
| simple reality is that I have zero control over what is
| happening behind the prompt. As a community we need a tool that
| is not as bound by corporate needs.
| ttul wrote:
| Isn't the problem partly the size of the model? Merely
| running inference on GPT-3 takes vast resources.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| zenosmosis wrote:
| Cool project.
|
| One thing I noticed about the website, however, is it is written
| using Next and doesn't work w/ JavaScript turned off in the
| browser. I thought that Next was geared for server-side rendered
| React where you could turn off JS in the browser.
|
| Seems like this would improve the SEO factor, and in doing so,
| might help spread the word more.
|
| https://github.com/LAION-AI/laion.ai
| MarvinYork wrote:
| 2023 -- turns off JS...
| zenosmosis wrote:
| Yes, I have a browser extension to turn off JS to see how a
| site will render with it turned off.
|
| And I do most of my coding w/ React / JS, so I fail to see
| your point.
| [deleted]
| residualmind wrote:
| and so it begins...
| xivzgrev wrote:
| I'm amazed this was released within a few months of chatgpt.
| always funny how innovation clusters together.
| coolspot wrote:
| It was started after the success of ChatGPT and based on their
| method.
| outside1234 wrote:
| My understanding is that OpenAI more or less created a
| supercomputer to train their model. How do we replicate that
| here?
|
| Is it possible to use a "SETI at Home" style approach to parcel
| out training?
| coolspot wrote:
| The plan is to use donated compute, like Google Research Cloud,
| Stability.ai, etc.
| darepublic wrote:
| This seems similar to a project I've been working on:
| https://browserdaemon.com. In regards to your crowd sourced data
| collection, perhaps you should have some hidden percentage of
| prompts where you know the correct completion to them already, to
| catch bad actors.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| The power in ChatGPT isn't that it's a chat bot, but its ability
| to do semantic analysis. It's already well established that you
| need high quality semi-curated data + high parameter count and
| that at a certain critical point, these models start
| comprehending and understanding language. All the smart people in
| the room at Google, Facebook, etc are absolutely pouring
| resources into this I promise they know what they're doing.
|
| We don't need yet-another-GUI. We need someone with a warehouse
| of GPUs to train a model with the parameter count of GPT3. Once
| that's done you'll have thousands of people cranking out tools
| with the capabilities of ChatGPT.
| bicx wrote:
| I'm new to this space so I am probable wrong, but it seems like
| BLOOM is in line with a lot of what you outlined:
| https://huggingface.co/bigscience/bloom
| richdougherty wrote:
| Your point about needing large models in the first place is
| well taken.
|
| But I still think we would want a curated collection of
| chat/assistant training data if we want to use that language
| model and train it for a chat/assistant application.
|
| So this is a two-phase project, the first phase being training
| a large model (GPT), the second being using Reinforcement
| Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) to train a chat application
| (InstructGPT/ChatGPT).
|
| There are definitely already people working on the first part,
| so it's useful to have a project focusing on the second.
| txtai wrote:
| InstructGPT which is a "sibling" model to ChatGPT is 1.3B
| parameters. https://openai.com/blog/instruction-following/
|
| Another thread on HN
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34653075) discusses a
| model that is less than 1B parameters and outperforms GPT-3.5.
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00923
|
| These models will get smaller and more efficiently use the
| parameters available.
| visarga wrote:
| The small models are usually tested on classification,
| question answering and extraction tasks, not on open text
| generation where I expect the large models still hold the
| reign.
| f6v wrote:
| > It's already well established that you need high quality
| semi-curated data + high parameter count and that at a certain
| critical point, these models start comprehending and
| understanding language
|
| I'm not sure what you mean by "understanding".
| moffkalast wrote:
| Likely something like being able to explain the meaning,
| intent, and information contained in a statement?
|
| The academic way of verifying if someone "understands"
| something is to ask them to explain it.
| williamcotton wrote:
| Does someone only understand English by being able to
| explain the language? Can someone understand English and
| not know any of the grammatical rules? Can someone
| understand English without being able to read and write?
|
| If you ask someone to pass you the salt, and they pass you
| the salt, do they not understand some English? Does
| everyone understand all English?
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well there seem to be three dictionary definitions:
|
| - perceive the intended meaning of words, a language, or
| a speaker (e.g. "he didn't understand a word I said")
|
| - interpret or view (something) in a particular way (e.g.
| "I understand you're at art school")
|
| - be sympathetically or knowledgeably aware of the
| character or nature of (e.g. "Picasso understood colour")
|
| I suppose I meant the 3rd one, but it's not so different
| from the 1st one in concept, since they both mean some
| kind of mastery of being able to give or receive
| information. The second one isn't all that relevant.
| williamcotton wrote:
| So only someone who has a mastery of English can be said
| to understand English? Does someone who speaks only a
| little bit of English not understand some English? Does
| someone need to "understand color" like Picasso in order
| to say they understand the difference between red and
| yellow?
|
| Why did we need the dictionary definitions? Do we not
| already both understand what we mean by the word?
|
| Isn't asking someone to pass the small blue box and then
| experiencing them pass you that small blue box show that
| they perceived the intended meaning of the words?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_theory_of_meaning
| moffkalast wrote:
| > Does someone who speaks only a little bit of English
| not understand some English?
|
| I mean yeah, sure? It's not a binary thing. Hardly anyone
| understands anything fully. But putting "sorta" before
| every "understand" gets old quick.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I mean if I memorize an explanation and recite it to you,
| do I actually understand it? Your evaluation function needs
| to determine if they just wrote memorize stuff.
|
| Explanation by analogy seems more interesting to me as now
| you have to know two different concepts and how the ideas
| in them can connect in ways that may be not be contained in
| the dataset the model is trained on.
|
| There was an interesting post where someone asked ChatGPT
| to make up a song/poem as if written by Eminem about the
| how an internal combustion engine works, and ChatGPT
| returns a pretty faithful rendition of just that. The model
| seems to 'know' who Eminem is, how their lyrics work in
| general, and the fundamental concepts of an engine.
| Y_Y wrote:
| I think a lot of ink has already been spilled on this
| topic, for example under the heading of "The Chinese
| Room"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
| moffkalast wrote:
| > The question Searle wants to answer is this: does the
| machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely
| simulating the ability to understand Chinese? Searle
| calls the first position "strong AI" and the latter "weak
| AI".
|
| > Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer
| would not be able to understand the conversation either.
|
| The problem with this is that there is no practical
| difference between a strong and weak AI. Hell, even for
| humans you could be the only person alive that's not a
| mindless automaton. There is no way to test for it. And
| just as well the same way a bunch of transistors don't
| understand anything a bunch of neurons don't either.
|
| Funniest thing about human inteligence is how it stems
| from our "good reason generator" that makes up random
| convincing reasons for doing actions we're already doing,
| so we could convince others to do what we say. Eventually
| we deluded ourselves enough to believe that those reasons
| came before the subconscious actions.
|
| Such a self-deluding system is mostly dead weight for AI,
| as as long as the system does or outputs what's needed
| there is no functional difference. Does that make it
| smart or dumb? Are viruses alive? Arbitrary lines are
| arbitrary.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >We need someone with a warehouse of GPUs to train a model with
| the parameter count of GPT3
|
| So I'm assuming that you don't follow Rob Miles. If you do this
| alone you're either going to create a psychopath or something
| completely useless.
|
| The GPT models have no means in themselves of understanding
| correctness or right/wrong answers. All of these models require
| training and alignment functions that are typically provided by
| human input judging the output of the model. And we still see
| where this goes wrong in ChatGPT where the bot turns into a
| 'Yes Man' because it's aligned with giving an answer rather
| than saying I don't know even when it's confidence in the
| answer is low.
|
| Computerphile did a video on this in the last few days on this
| subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viJt_DXTfwA
| RobotToaster wrote:
| It's a robot, it's supposed to do what I say, not judge the
| moral and ethical implications of it, that's my job.
| pixl97 wrote:
| No, it is not a robot. The models that we are developing
| are closer to a genie. That is we make a wish to it and we
| hope and pray it interprets our wish correctly. If you're
| looking at this like a math problem where you want the
| answer 1+1 you use a calculator, because that is not what
| is occurring here. The 'robots' alignment will highly
| depend on the quality of training you give it, not the
| quality of the information it receives. And as we are
| learning with ChatGPT there are far more ways to create an
| unaligned model with surprising gotchas then there are ways
| to train a model that behaves in alignment with human
| expectations of an intelligent actor.
|
| In addition the use of the word robot signifies embodyment.
| That is an object with a physical quantity capable of
| interacting with the world. You better be damned sure of
| your models capabilities before you end up being held
| criminally liable for its actions. And this will happen,
| there are no shortage of people here on HN alone looking to
| embody intelligence in physically interactive devices.
| Y_Y wrote:
| I think it's about time we had a "Stallman fights the
| printer company" moment here. My Android phone often tries
| to overrule me, Windows 10 does the same, not to mention
| OSX. Even the Ubuntu installer outright won't let you set a
| password it doesn't like (but passwd doesn't care). My
| device should do exactly what I tell it to, if that's
| possible. It's fine to give a warning or a "I know what I'm
| doing checkbox", but I'm not using a computer to get it's
| opinion on ethics or security or legality or whatever its
| justification is. It's a tool, not a person.
| pixl97 wrote:
| "I know what I am doing, I accept unlimited liability"
|
| There are two particular issues we need to address first.
| One is holding companies criminally and civilly reliable
| for the things they create. We kind of do this at a
| regulatory level, and we have some measure of suing
| companies that cause problems, but really they get away
| with a lot. Second is personal criminal and civil
| liability for management of 'your' objects. The
| libertarian minded love the idea of shirking social
| liability, and then start crying when bears become a
| problem (see Hongoltz-Hetlings book). And even then it's
| still not difficult for an individual to cause damages
| far in excess of their ability to remediate them.
|
| There are no shortage of tools that are restricted in one
| way or another.
| seydor wrote:
| > but its ability to do semantic analysis
|
| where is that shown ?
| shpongled wrote:
| I would argue that it appears very good at syntactic
| analysis... but semantic, not so much.
| agentofoblivion wrote:
| You could have written this exact same post, and been wrong,
| about text2img until Stable Diffusion came along.
| lolinder wrote:
| Isn't OP's point that we need a game-changing open source
| model before any of the UI projects will be useful at all?
| Doesn't Stable Diffusion prove that point?
| agentofoblivion wrote:
| How? Stable Diffusion v1 uses, for example, the off the
| shelf CLIP model. The hard part is getting the dataset and
| something that's functional, and then the community takes
| over and optimizes like hell to make it way smaller and
| faster at lightning speed.
|
| The same will probably happen here. Set up the tools. Get
| the dataset. Sew it together into something functional with
| standard building blocks. Let the community do its thing.
| winddude wrote:
| I'd be interested in helping, but the organisation is a bit of a
| cluster fuck.
| pqdbr wrote:
| Would you care to add some context or you're just throwing
| stones for no reason at all?
| NayamAmarshe wrote:
| FOSS is the future!
| Quequau wrote:
| I tried this via the docker containers and wound up with what
| looked like their website. Not sure what I did wrong.
| coolspot wrote:
| The project is a website to collect question-answer pairs for
| training.
| grealy wrote:
| The project is in the data training phase. What you are running
| is the website and backend that facilitates model training.
|
| In the very near future, there will be trained models which you
| can download and run, which is what it sounds like you were
| expecting.
| yazzku wrote:
| What's the tl;dr on the Apache license? Is there any guarantee
| that our data and labelling contributions will remain open?
| jcq3 wrote:
| Amazing project but does it can even compete against GPT right
| now? Open source leads innovation towards closed source (Linux to
| Windows) but in this case it's the contrary
| seydor wrote:
| What if we use chatGPT responses as contributions? I dont see a
| legal issue here, unless openAi can claim ownership of any of
| their input/output material. It would be also a good way for
| those disillusioned by the "openness" of that company
| speedgoose wrote:
| Copyright doesn't apply to content created by non legal
| persons, and as far as I know chatGPT isn't a legal person.
|
| So OpenAI cannot claim copyright and they don't.
| bogwog wrote:
| That doesn't seem like a good argument. Who said ChatGPT is a
| person? It's just software used to generate stuff, and it
| wouldn't be the first time a company claimed copyright
| ownership over the things generated/created by its tools.
| speedgoose wrote:
| Not the first time but it would probably not stand in
| court.
|
| I'm not a lawyer and not a USA citizen...
| raincole wrote:
| Even if it's legal, I don't think it's a really good idea. It's
| just going to make it even more bullshitting than ChatGPT.
| visarga wrote:
| Sample 10-20 answers from and existing LM and use them for
| reference when coming up with replies. A model would remind
| you of things you missed. Think of this as testing your data
| coverage.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Agreed if automated, but frequently ChatGPT gives very good
| answers. If you know the subject matter you can quite easily
| filter it, too. I was tempted to do similar just to start my
| research.
|
| Eg if i get a prompt about something i suspect ChatGPT would
| give me a good starting point to research on my own, and
| build my own response.
|
| These days that's how i use ChatGPT anyway. Like an
| conversational Google Search.
|
| _edit_ : As an aside, OpenAssistant is crowdsourcing both
| conversational data and validation. I wonder if we could just
| validate ChatGPT?
| pixl97 wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viJt_DXTfwA
|
| Computerphile did an interview with Rob Miles a few days ago
| talking about model training, model size, and bulllshittery
| which he sums up in the last few moments of the video.
| Numerous problems exist in training that enhance bad
| behaviors. For example it appears that the people giving
| input on the responses may have a (Yes|No) voting system, but
| not a (Yes | No | I actually have no idea on this question)
| which appears it can create some interesting alignment
| issues.
| O__________O wrote:
| Agree, pretty obvious question, and yes, they have explicitly
| said not to do so here:
|
| - https://github.com/LAION-AI/Open-Assistant/issues/850
|
| And here in a related issue:
|
| - https://github.com/LAION-AI/Open-Assistant/issues/792
| calny wrote:
| You're right. As the issues point out, OpenAI's terms say
| here https://openai.com/terms/:
|
| > (c) Restrictions. You may not ... (iii) use the Services to
| develop foundation models or other large scale models that
| compete with OpenAI...
|
| I'm a lawyer who often roots for upstarts and underdogs, and
| I like picking apart overreaching terms from incumbent
| companies. That said, I haven't analyzed whether you could
| beat these terms in court, and it's not a position you'd want
| to find yourself in.
|
| typical disclaimers: this isn't legal advice, I'm not your
| lawyer, etc.
| Vespasian wrote:
| But that would only be an issue for the user feeding the
| openAI responses.
|
| According to OpenAI the actual text copyright or
| restriction "magically" vanish once they are used for
| training.
| O__________O wrote:
| Not a lawyer, but even if it's not enforceable OpenAI could
| easily trace the data back to an account that was doing
| this and terminate their account.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Why not? Open AI used data that they didn't receive permission
| from the author to train their models.
| mattalex wrote:
| It's against openai ToS. Whether this holds up in practice is
| its own thing, but it's better to not give anyone a reason to
| shut the project down (even if only temporarily)
| wg0 wrote:
| Not rhetorical but genuine question. What part of OpenAI is
| open?
| seydor wrote:
| that s an open question
| miohtama wrote:
| Name
| wkat4242 wrote:
| The software used to generate the model is open.
|
| The only problem is you need a serious datacenter for a few
| months to compile a model with it.
| throwaway49591 wrote:
| The research itself. The most important part.
| O__________O wrote:
| Missed where OpenAI posted a research paper, source code,
| data, etc. for ChatGPT, have a link?
| seydor wrote:
| There's instructGPT
|
| But let's be honest , most of the IP that openAI relies
| on has been developed by google and many other smaller
| players
| throwaway49591 wrote:
| ChatGPT is GPT-3 with extended training data and larger
| size.
|
| Here you go: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165
|
| I don't know why do you expect training data or the model
| itself. This is more than enough already. Publicly funded
| research wouldn't have given that to you too.
| mellosouls wrote:
| In the not too distant future we may see integrations with
| always-on recording devices (yes, I know, shudder) transcribing
| our every conversation and interaction and incorporating the text
| in place of the current custom-corpus style addenda to LLMs to
| give a truly personal and social skew to the current capabilities
| in the form of automatically-compiled memories to draw on.
| panosfilianos wrote:
| I'm not too sure Siri/ Google Assistant doesn't do this
| already, but to serve us ads.
| dbish wrote:
| That would also be crazy expensive and hard to do well. They
| struggle with current speech reco that's relatively simple,
| and can't do this more complex always listening thing at high
| accuracy and identifying relevant topics worth serving an ad
| on even if they wanted to and it wasn't illegal. This is
| always the thing people would say for Alexa and Facebook too.
| The reality is people see patterns where there aren't any or
| forget they searched for something that they also talked
| about and that's what actually drove the specific ad they
| saw.
| jononor wrote:
| A high-end phone is quite capable of doing automatic speech
| recognition continuously, as well as NLP topic analysis.
| The last years voice activity detection has moved down into
| the microphone itself, to enable ultra low power always-
| listening functionality. It then triggers further
| processing of the potentially-containing-speech audio.
| Modern SoC have dedicated microcontroller/microprocessor
| cores that can do further audio analysis, without involving
| the main cores or the OS. Typically deciding if something
| is speech or not. Today this is usually doing Keyword
| Spotting (hey Alexa etc). These are expected to get access
| to neural accelerators chips, which will further improve
| power efficiency and eventually having sufficient memory
| and computer to run speech recognition. So the
| technological barriers are falling one by one.
| schrodinger wrote:
| If Siri or Google were doing this, it would have been
| whistleblown by someone by now.
|
| As far I as understand, Siri works with a very simple "hey
| siri" detector that then fires up a more advanced system that
| verifies "is this the phone owner asking the question" before
| even trying to answer.
|
| I'm confident privacy-sensitive engineers would notice and
| flag any misuse;
| xputer wrote:
| They're not. A breach of trust at that level would kill the
| product instantly.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| Call me jaded but I don't believe that anymore. They might
| lose 20%. Maybe that's enough to kill but I honestly
| believe people would just start rolling with it
| itake wrote:
| I talked to an Amazon Echo engineer about how the sound
| recording works. They said there is just enough hardware on
| the device to understand "hello Alexa" and then everything
| else is piped to the cloud.
|
| Currently, ML models are too resource intensive ($$) for
| always on-recording.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I'm not too sure Siri/ Google Assistant doesn't do this
| already, but to serve us ads.
|
| If it did, traffic analysis would probably have revealed it.
| seydor wrote:
| To me, the value of a local-LLM is that it can hold my life's
| notes and i d talk to it as if it was my alter ego until old
| age. One could say, it's the kind of "soul" that outlasts us
| LesZedCB wrote:
| You know what's funny, that episode of black mirror about
| that I thought was so unbelievable when I saw it
| seydor wrote:
| what is the name of that episode?
| LesZedCB wrote:
| I actually meant _Be Right Back_ , s2e1.
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2290780/
|
| "After learning about a new service that lets people stay
| in touch with the deceased, a lonely, grieving Martha
| reconnects with her late lover."
| [deleted]
| mclightning wrote:
| holy sh*t. that's so true! that could definitely be
| possible.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| besides the synthetic body, we have the text interaction,
| the text-to-speech in a persons voice, and avatar
| generation/deep fakes. almost the entirety of that
| episode is available today, which i didn't believe was
| even ten years away when i saw it.
|
| referring to s2e1: _Be Right Back_
|
| it really asks great questions about image/reality too
| mclightning wrote:
| Imagine training a GPT on your own
| whatsapp/fb/instagram/linked/emails conversations: all
| the conversations, posts. A huge part of our life is
| already happening online, and the conversations with it.
| It is not too much work to simply take that data and
| retrain GPT.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| i initially tried to download a bunch of my reddit
| comments and try to get it to write "in my style" but i
| think i need to actually go through the fine tuning
| process to do that well.
| mab122 wrote:
| I am more and more convinvced that we are living in a
| timeline described in
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando (at least the first
| part and I would argue that we have it worse)
| ilaksh wrote:
| Look at David Shapiro's project on GitHub, not Raven but the
| other one that is more fleshed out. He already does the
| summarization of dialogue and retrieval of relevant info using
| the OpenAI APIs I believe. You could combine that with the
| Chrome web speech or speech-to-text API which can stay on
| continuously. You would need to modify it a bit to know about
| third party conversations and your phone would run out of
| battery. But you could technically make the code changes in a
| day or two I think.
| dchuk wrote:
| I think we are right around the corner from actual AI personal
| assistants, which is pretty exciting. We have great tooling for
| speech to text, text to speech, and LLMs with memory for
| "talking" to the AI. Combining those with both an index of the
| internet (for up to date data, likely a big part of the
| Microsoft/open ai partnership) and an index of your own
| content/life data, and this could all actually work together
| soon. I'm an iPhone guy, but I would imagine all of this could be
| combined together on an android phone (due to it being way more
| flexible) then combining that with a wireless earbud and then
| rather than it being a "normal" phone, it's just a pocketable
| smart assistant. Crazy times we live in. I'm 35, so have
| basically lived through the world being "broken" by tech a few
| times now: the internet, social media, and smart phones all
| fundamentally reshaped society. Seems like AI that we are living
| through right now is about to break the world again.
|
| EDIT: everything I wrote above is going to immediately run into a
| legal hellscape, I get that. If everyone has devices in their
| pockets recording and processing everything spoken around them in
| order to assist their owner, real life starts getting extra dicey
| quickly. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
| funerr wrote:
| Is there a way to donate to this project?
| AstixAndBelix wrote:
| It's funny because the moment this is available to run on your
| machine you realize how useless it is. It might be fun to test
| its conversational limits, but only Siri can actually set an
| alarm or a timer or run a shortcut, while this thing can only
| blabber
| hgsgm wrote:
| It's pretty bad at baking a cake too.
|
| It's a chatbot, not a home automation controller. It's a
| research&writing assistant, not an executive assistant.
| AstixAndBelix wrote:
| How can it be a research assistant if it keeps making up
| stuff?
| pixl97 wrote:
| How can humans be research assistants if they make shit up
| all the time?
| AstixAndBelix wrote:
| If I tasked an assistant to provide 10 papers, and 8 of
| them turned out to be made up they would be fired
| instantly. Unless someone wants to actively scam you,
| they will always provide 10 real results. Some of them
| might not be completely on topic, but at least they would
| not be made up
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I don't want to sound dismissive, but 3rd party integration is
| part of the roadmap and any project has to start somewhere. I
| will admit I am kinda excited to have an alternative to
| commercial options.
| traverseda wrote:
| I don't see why you couldn't integrate this kind of thing with
| some kind of command line, letting it integrate with arbitrary
| services.
| AstixAndBelix wrote:
| it's not deterministic, I don't want it to interpret the same
| command with <100% accuracy
| qup wrote:
| I'm already doing this. I currently only accept a subset of
| possible commands.
|
| The accuracy is a problem, but I think it's my prompting.
| I'm sure I can improve it by walking it through the steps
| or something.
|
| You can also just work in human approval to run any
| commands.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Are humans deterministic? Hell, I wish my plain old normal
| digital computer was 100% deterministic, but it ain't due
| to any number of factors from bugs and state logic errors
| all the way to issues occurring near the quantum level.
|
| You're setting the goal so high it is not reachable by
| anything.
| traverseda wrote:
| It's deterministic. They throw in a random seed with online
| services like chatgpt.
|
| If it wasn't deterministic for some reason thar wouldn't be
| because it's magic, it would be because of hardware timing
| issues sneaking in (same reason why source code compiles
| can be non-reproducible), and could be solved by ordering
| the results of parallel computation that doesn't have a
| guaranteed order.
|
| To the best of my knowledge it's not a problem though.
| ajot wrote:
| Can you run Siri outside of iOS? Can you work on it? FLOSS can
| help there, I could run this locally on a RasPi or old laptop
| if I want
| AstixAndBelix wrote:
| This is not a deterministic assistant like Siri, this is a
| ChatGPT conversational tool that might act up if you ask it
| to do anything
| turnsout wrote:
| To be fair, Siri's success rate at setting an alarm is about
| 3/10 in my household. Let's give open source a chance here
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-04 23:00 UTC) |