3 ms·

They sat on the model for 6 months just testing and aligning it, how's that for caring about safety? You know who trains and releases without care? FaceBook. T

They sat on the model for 6 months just testing and aligning it, how's that for caring about safety? You know who trains and releases without care? FaceBook. They released LLaMA without any RLHF so it can say anything and is completely unfiltered.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> They sat on the model for 6 months just testing and aligning it, how’s that for caring about safety? Its not, its them caring about centralized control and PR.
jerpint 4y ago
This is a pretty narrow view, and I disagree with it. We can study llama inside out, adapt it for good and bad. It’s objective. GPT is subject to openAI whim. Facebook is sharing findings, openAI shutting its doors
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MacsHeadroom 4y ago
They sat on it for 8 months and then an additional 6 months. And what are all the mitigations they added in that time? 3 pages of text in the report, which amount to "a little less likely to provide detailed instructions on clandestine nerve gas production"
swatcoder 4y ago
> They released LLaMA without any RLHF so it can say anything and is completely unfiltered. An open, untrained model is way more responsible to society than a handful of centralized models that have all been trained to reify a "2020's Professional-Class American Urbanite" worldview and project it upon all users. The latter might sound great to you if that's pretty close to your own worldview right now, but is absurdly short-sighted and presumptuous. The reason Microsoft/OpenAI is doing what they're doing is so that they can quickly sell a low-scandal product to global-wealthy users aligned with that $$$-flooded worldview and secure a business lead on that market. They don't want to offend today's customers and don't have the integrity to think about the long-term global picture for society. Their work is in their interest as a corporation, and perhaps in stroking their own ego as individual researchers. The "safety" language is a cynical rationalization.
haswell 4y ago
> They sat on the model for 6 months just testing and aligning it, how's that for caring about safety? I have no idea, because as they directly acknowledge, they are still trying to generate the motivation to build the tools that can measure safety. 6 months is an arbitrary number that could mean everything or nothing depending on how it was used. What Facebook does or doesn't do has no bearing on an arbitrary number either. This is whataboutism.
Der_Einzige 4y ago
RLHF does nothing to "filter" or guarantee that the output will be good. It changes the weights of the NN to push the probabilities of naughty tokens to be low. Actual "filtering" would be filtering assisted decoding where you remove tokens from the vocabulary you don't want at a particular time step, which is described in this paper: https://paperswithcode.com/paper/most-language-models-can-be-poets-too-an-ai https://paperswithcode.com/paper/most-language-models-can-be...

dragonwriter 4y ago

> They sat on the model for 6 months just testing and aligning it, how’s that for caring about safety? Its not, its them caring about centralized control and PR.

jerpint 4y ago

This is a pretty narrow view, and I disagree with it. We can study llama inside out, adapt it for good and bad. It’s objective. GPT is subject to openAI whim. Facebook is sharing findings, openAI shutting its doors

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

MacsHeadroom 4y ago

They sat on it for 8 months and then an additional 6 months. And what are all the mitigations they added in that time? 3 pages of text in the report, which amount to "a little less likely to provide detailed instructions on clandestine nerve gas production"

swatcoder 4y ago

> They released LLaMA without any RLHF so it can say anything and is completely unfiltered. An open, untrained model is way more responsible to society than a handful of centralized models that have all been trained to reify a "2020's Professional-Class American Urbanite" worldview and project it upon all users. The latter might sound great to you if that's pretty close to your own worldview right now, but is absurdly short-sighted and presumptuous. The reason Microsoft/OpenAI is doing what they're doing is so that they can quickly sell a low-scandal product to global-wealthy users aligned with that $$$-flooded worldview and secure a business lead on that market. They don't want to offend today's customers and don't have the integrity to think about the long-term global picture for society. Their work is in their interest as a corporation, and perhaps in stroking their own ego as individual researchers. The "safety" language is a cynical rationalization.

haswell 4y ago

> They sat on the model for 6 months just testing and aligning it, how's that for caring about safety? I have no idea, because as they directly acknowledge, they are still trying to generate the motivation to build the tools that can measure safety. 6 months is an arbitrary number that could mean everything or nothing depending on how it was used. What Facebook does or doesn't do has no bearing on an arbitrary number either. This is whataboutism.

Der_Einzige 4y ago

RLHF does nothing to "filter" or guarantee that the output will be good. It changes the weights of the NN to push the probabilities of naughty tokens to be low. Actual "filtering" would be filtering assisted decoding where you remove tokens from the vocabulary you don't want at a particular time step, which is described in this paper: https://paperswithcode.com/paper/most-language-models-can-be-poets-too-an-ai https://paperswithcode.com/paper/most-language-models-can-be...