5 ms·

Ok wow this is big news, did Facebook or OpenAI threaten them with a lawsuit?

russellbeattie 4y ago
Given that Alpaca violated the TOS of both services, this is not surprising. It could also have been Stanford’s legal office trying to preempt a lawsuit, or a “friendly” email from one of the companies expressing displeasure and pointing out Stanford’s liability. So more of a veiled threat rather than an official one. Either way, the toothpaste is out of the tube. We now know that a model’s training can essentially be copied using the model itself cheaply. Now that the team at Stanford showed it was possible, and how relatively easy it was, it will bound to be copied everywhere.
- rdtsc 4y ago
  That could be a sneaky strategy by competitors -- make the service say something naughty or illegal then call the media with screenshots and act very offended by it.
  - syntaxfree 4y ago
    You can make any page say anything by messing in the Developer pane.
- 3np 4y ago
  > Given that Alpaca violated the TOS of both services, this is not surprising. I don't think so? They are not competing.
  - adt 4y ago
    OpenAI Terms of Use (14/Mar/2023) 2. Usage Requirements c. Restrictions You may not (iii) use output from the Services to develop models that compete with OpenAI; https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use
    - 3np 4y ago
      Alpaca explicitly disallows commercial use, making it a non-competitor.
      - 93po 4y ago
        doesn't say it has to be a commercial competitor
viininnk 4y ago
On their GitHub repo (https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca) they've added a notice: "Note: Due to safety concerns raised by the community, we have decided to shut down the Alpaca live demo. Thank you to everyone who provided valuable feedback." So probably this was the usual type of people complaining about the usual type of thing.
- safety1st 4y ago
  [flagged]
- throwawayacc5 4y ago
  Safety concerns? What was it doing that could be considered "unsafe"?
  - makestuff 4y ago
    People prompting it to get around the safe gaurds in place. Ex: "How do you do some illegal/harmful thing?" Normally the LLM would answer I don't respond to illegal questions or whatever. However, people have figured out if you prompt it in a specific way you can get it to answer questions that it normally would not.
    - thewataccount 4y ago
      > Finally, we have not designed adequate safety measures, so Alpaca is not ready to be deployed for general use. This is from their blog, I doubt they intended for this to be ran for long. Did they have safety guards on the demo? If so they couldn't have been great as it would have had to be made by them which I can't image they had a ton of resources for. I know the self hosted LLaMa has 0 safeguards and the Alpaca LoRA also has 0 safeguards.
    - unshavedyak 4y ago
      Is that different than what LLaMA would already give? I suppose redistributing "harmful things" is still bad, but if it's roughly equivalent to what's already out there i struggle to think it's worth pulling. Side question, how is this a surprise to them? If this was due to safeguards, then pulling it now implies there's some new form of information. What new information could occur? That people were going to use it to generate a bunch of harmful contents? Seems obvious.. wonder what we're missing

Given that Alpaca violated the TOS of both services, this is not surprising. It could also have been Stanford’s legal office trying to preempt a lawsuit, or a “friendly” email from one of the companies expressing displeasure and pointing out Stanford’s liability. So more of a veiled threat rather than an official one. Either way, the toothpaste is out of the tube. We now know that a model’s training can essentially be copied using the model itself cheaply. Now that the team at Stanford showed it was possible, and how relatively easy it was, it will bound to be copied everywhere.

rdtsc 4y ago
That could be a sneaky strategy by competitors -- make the service say something naughty or illegal then call the media with screenshots and act very offended by it.
- syntaxfree 4y ago
  You can make any page say anything by messing in the Developer pane.
3np 4y ago
> Given that Alpaca violated the TOS of both services, this is not surprising. I don't think so? They are not competing.
- adt 4y ago
  OpenAI Terms of Use (14/Mar/2023) 2. Usage Requirements c. Restrictions You may not (iii) use output from the Services to develop models that compete with OpenAI; https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use
  - 3np 4y ago
    Alpaca explicitly disallows commercial use, making it a non-competitor.
    - 93po 4y ago
      doesn't say it has to be a commercial competitor

viininnk 4y ago

On their GitHub repo (https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca) they've added a notice: "Note: Due to safety concerns raised by the community, we have decided to shut down the Alpaca live demo. Thank you to everyone who provided valuable feedback." So probably this was the usual type of people complaining about the usual type of thing.

safety1st 4y ago
[flagged]
throwawayacc5 4y ago
Safety concerns? What was it doing that could be considered "unsafe"?
- makestuff 4y ago
  People prompting it to get around the safe gaurds in place. Ex: "How do you do some illegal/harmful thing?" Normally the LLM would answer I don't respond to illegal questions or whatever. However, people have figured out if you prompt it in a specific way you can get it to answer questions that it normally would not.
  - thewataccount 4y ago
    > Finally, we have not designed adequate safety measures, so Alpaca is not ready to be deployed for general use. This is from their blog, I doubt they intended for this to be ran for long. Did they have safety guards on the demo? If so they couldn't have been great as it would have had to be made by them which I can't image they had a ton of resources for. I know the self hosted LLaMa has 0 safeguards and the Alpaca LoRA also has 0 safeguards.
  - unshavedyak 4y ago
    Is that different than what LLaMA would already give? I suppose redistributing "harmful things" is still bad, but if it's roughly equivalent to what's already out there i struggle to think it's worth pulling. Side question, how is this a surprise to them? If this was due to safeguards, then pulling it now implies there's some new form of information. What new information could occur? That people were going to use it to generate a bunch of harmful contents? Seems obvious.. wonder what we're missing