4 ms·

This is a strawman argument. Publishing the code/weights is not mutually exclusive to providing an API

jasode 5y ago
>This is a strawman argument. Publishing the code/weights is not mutually exclusive to providing an API You're misinterpreting my comment. I'm directly addressing this fragment by the gp: >which can be downloaded, and accessed as a library, I'm not making any moral ideology statements about the model's "openness", "transparency", or "intellectual property". As a person very interested in playing with something like GPT-3, I'm talking about practical concerns of even running the model. Some type of cloud API access let's me run experiments today. Hopefully the API cost is reasonable or free with limits. I believe that's true of most researchers because they can't afford the hardware in the near future to run a GPT-3-size model as local library.
- nexuist 5y ago
  > Hopefully the API cost is reasonable or free with limits If the model was open source you could have an API market where providers competed to build the most economic service just like virtual machine companies do with Linux. If there is only one API then everyone is stuck with them and just has to hope they don't change the prices. There is practical concern for researchers within the possibility that what costs you $0.05 to run today will cost you $500 tomorrow (see Google Maps API for when this actually happened).
  - samhw 5y ago
    It seems like quite a simple calculus to me: if ever the cost of reasonably using the API exceeds the cost of buying and operating a machine with 350GB RAM, then people will switch to the latter. Either way, I don't see how adding a new option could make anyone's situation worse.
    - MauranKilom 5y ago
      > the cost of reasonably using the API exceeds the cost of buying and operating a machine with 350GB RAM Capex and opex of these two are quite different.

>This is a strawman argument. Publishing the code/weights is not mutually exclusive to providing an API You're misinterpreting my comment. I'm directly addressing this fragment by the gp: >which can be downloaded, and accessed as a library, I'm not making any moral ideology statements about the model's "openness", "transparency", or "intellectual property". As a person very interested in playing with something like GPT-3, I'm talking about practical concerns of even running the model. Some type of cloud API access let's me run experiments today. Hopefully the API cost is reasonable or free with limits. I believe that's true of most researchers because they can't afford the hardware in the near future to run a GPT-3-size model as local library.

nexuist 5y ago
> Hopefully the API cost is reasonable or free with limits If the model was open source you could have an API market where providers competed to build the most economic service just like virtual machine companies do with Linux. If there is only one API then everyone is stuck with them and just has to hope they don't change the prices. There is practical concern for researchers within the possibility that what costs you $0.05 to run today will cost you $500 tomorrow (see Google Maps API for when this actually happened).
- samhw 5y ago
  It seems like quite a simple calculus to me: if ever the cost of reasonably using the API exceeds the cost of buying and operating a machine with 350GB RAM, then people will switch to the latter. Either way, I don't see how adding a new option could make anyone's situation worse.
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    > the cost of reasonably using the API exceeds the cost of buying and operating a machine with 350GB RAM Capex and opex of these two are quite different.