8 ms·
Stanford’s Alpaca shows that OpenAI may have a problem
- ftxbro 4y agoSo think about it. If Morgan Stanley is right and OpenAI is currently training GPT-5 for hundreds of millions of dollars, they might not make it directly available. They could use Alpaca power to use it to boost GPT-4 or GPT-3. This way they could have these super optimized models that can fit in smaller memory and compute their tokens faster than any of the competition. This would be the opposite of OpenAI having a problem. It would be this huge economic moat that lasts for a while until more efficient hardware and more capital spending by their competition degrades it. It would even solve the problem of super human GPT-5 cognition. That would be moot if it's never released and only used to Alpaca-ize their own smaller models.
- atleastoptimal 4y agoThat's true. Anything open source to the public is obviously open source to a company. They can create public, miniaturized versions of their models and release capabilities only when it suits them, using Alpaca style training to minimize costs for their API.
- meghan_rain 4y agoSource on Morgan Stanley talking about GPT-5?
- ftxbro 4y agoI hope my analysis makes sense regardless of when or how OpenAI ends up training GPT-5, but the Morgan Stanley thing is an internet rumor for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35222180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35222180
- meghan_rain 4y agoThanks
- huijzer 4y agoEven without Morgan Stanley claims, Greg Brockman and Satya have both said that GPT-3.5 was already internally used by them since the summer of last year and GPT-4 in December. Greg mentions it in https://youtu.be/YtJEfTTD_Y4 https://youtu.be/YtJEfTTD_Y4 for example
- light_hue_1 4y ago> It would even solve the problem of super human GPT-5 cognition. That would be moot if it's never released and only used to Alpaca-ize their own smaller models. They would not have a moat from this strategy. At the end of the day, they still make available a model with high performance. The whole point is that anyone, for very little money, can fine-tune another model to match the performance of OpenAI's models.
- jostiniane 4y agoThat's a valid perspective IMO but corporations are too slow to react and keep up.. Another thing is, if models that are good enough for the general use case that I can fit in my medium range hardware then I definitely don't need to pay for the more perfect one.. A couple of such good enough models are already there and a lot of us are already not following or waiting for the GPT-10.. That's the point of the article and why OpenAI are visibly insecure about those models.
- throwaway1851 4y agoIf we continue on this trajectory, I have a suspicion that the big players will increasingly cry “danger!” and, as Sam Altman has done already, call for government regulation of AI. Having potential upstarts buried in red tape is how monopolies and oligopolies sustain their positions in a lot of industries.
- ftxbro 4y agoIt sounds like regulatory capture!
- davesque 4y agoThe folks at OpenAI have already started doing this. Just the other day, their chief scientist was making noises along those lines.
- petra 4y agoCan AI really be regulated When China could release an app?
- ChatGTP 4y agoI don't think China would release an app, it's a country which highly values censorship and hiding information, why would they want ChaGPT like systems that aren't heavily censored / broken from entering the public sphere.
- user_named 4y agoIsn't ChatGPT heavily censored?
- Sharlin 4y agoIf you have to ask, you don’t have any idea what actual censorship is.
- 4y ago
- varunkmohan 4y agoOpenAI has done the reasonable thing of not exposing the probability distribution per generated token so it's very hard to use that to completely map to their models. Ultimately, you still do need a very large base model to compete.
- meghan_rain 4y ago"not exposing the probability distribution per generated token" can you elaborate on what that means?
- throwaway1851 4y agoA language model takes in a sequence of tokens and outputs a probability (0-1) for each token in the vocabulary (the set of all tokens the model knows). Based on this probability distribution, there are various sampling strategies that can be employed to choose which token to actually show to the user.
- wskish 4y agoOpenAI's previous completion endpoint for the davinci-003 and older models included a "logprob" return option: https://platform.openai.com/docs/api-reference/completions/create#completions/create-logprobs https://platform.openai.com/docs/api-reference/completions/c... Their newer chat style endpoint for the GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4 models no longer supports this. https://platform.openai.com/docs/api-reference/chat https://platform.openai.com/docs/api-reference/chat
- leobg 4y agoI was wondering. They do give you an embeddings endpoint. Can’t that theoretically be used to reconstruct the model’s weights?
- ackbar03 4y agoI think it's still up to debate whether this tech is really a winner takes all sort of thing, I think even with the image generation ai craze, we saw a bunch of different implementations come out in succession. Maybe one might be slightly better but it's still possible to get something close pretty quickly
- rvz 4y ago"The only way to compete against OpenAI is an open-source version of ChatGPT" [0] It can also be a free binary only model as well, but I would prefer a transparent one. Either way seems like Stanford Alpaca and LLaMa has taken off in cloning ChatGPT and making it good enough to compete against it at a affordable cost. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34643589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34643589
- singularity2001 4y agoso far it's no where "good enough" though
- kthejoker2 4y agoChatGPT also isn't good enough for ... almost anything, but here we are. Might as well make it cheap and easily portable and fine tunable
- reilly3000 4y agoIf it wasn't against their TOS, ChatGPT is a great tool to help build ChatGPT.
- gkbrk 4y agoIt's not a meaningful restriction. Even if they were good at catching accounts doing this, the community that wants an open-source chat assistant is so huge that you could easily find many people to share their API keys or install a browser extension to share their chats.
- denzil 4y agoEven that is not needed. There is enough people that want open source ChatGPT clone to create the dataset from scratch by themselves. The Open Assistant community actually already created enough training data for the initial model training and the data will be released under open source license. And from what I played with the initial model, it looked promising (though not anywhere close to GPT 3.5 yet).
- nbzso 4y ago[flagged]
- sho 4y ago> This is the reality, not some "conspiracy". It is the absolute textbook definition of conspiracy thinking. You seriously think some shadowy elite started "a lockdown, then a war, centralizing the banking system and unleashing A.I." in furtherance of some unspecified nefarious plan? Wild claims presented with zero evidence can and should simply be dismissed without further thought.
- nbzso 4y agoIs expected plan. And if you want to think critically, do research on these topics. If you expect the media to give you the facts, good luck. The strange part is that everything that I mentioned is in the public domain, as a fact or policy.
- sho 4y agoShould have known your reply would be "do your own research". How about no, you go and do it, and wow the entire world with your incredible story. The reason the media isn't covering this nonsense isn't because of a cover-up, it's because it's nothing but fantasy.
- tppiotrowski 4y agoEverything you claim makes sense but so would aliens or that we're inside a computer game, etc. Inventing explanations to facts is a trivial skill. Formulating a theory that can predict future events is an actual achievement.
- barbazoo 4y agoI don't think this is a place for unfounded conspiracy theories.
- logicchains 4y ago
- r3trohack3r 4y agoIANAL, but this is a clear violation of the OpenAI Terms of Use 2(c)(ii): https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use Doesn’t mean it’s enforceable though. That being said, given the priority this is given in their ToS, I suspect they’ll be hearing from lawyers. Edit: to be clear I don’t support this clause in their ToS, this is just something I noticed having had to study their ToS and privacy policy within the past week.
- DoesntMatter22 4y agoIt says in the article that it's a violation of the TOS.
- snovv_crash 4y agoScraping images from Getty is also violating the terms of service.
- DoesntMatter22 4y agoHow is that related to anything?
- r3trohack3r 4y agoIt is. And they heard from Getty’s lawyers.
- MacsHeadroom 4y agoThere's nothing wrong with violating a ToS. Worst case your account gets banned.
- somenameforme 4y agoI would be curious to hear a lawyer's take on this, though I suspect we'll be hearing the Supreme Court's on it soon enough. This seems to be begging the question of who owns the content produced by the software. So far, the courts have stated that model-generated content cannot be copyrighted [1]. That was referring to images, and text seems likely to be on even shakier ground. I don't see how a company could license the usage of something that they don't have the legal rights to - the output text in particular. Obviously OpenAI can terminate people's accounts for whatever reason they want, but that's largely meaningless. They have 0 chances of deterring anything unless they can secure substantial damages. [1] - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic...
- UncleEntity 4y agoDoes anyone think this wasn’t Meta’s plan all along?
- jostiniane 4y agoIt's a lovely plan to kill the industry if you are not already deep in it, no amount of lawyers will help taking down the torrents already available.
- collaborative 4y agoI mean, isn't MS trying to kill search (Google) by pouring milions into AI?
- jostiniane 4y agoI think so yes, and it's also nice IMO. Probably search won't be about receiving 10,000 search results, but about 1 concise, justified answer backed by actual sources.
- arlcode 4y agoRight up until the ad and SEO people get their gritty hands on it. Either Microsoft is successful charging people for it or it's going to become just as infested as Google is right now. Maybe even then. Double dipping is not exactly unheard of.
- jostiniane 4y agoCan't agree more, and we are back to square 0 wondering how can we find the good stuff again after it gets buried under the mass-SEO-optimized random garbage.
- kweingar 4y agoMass adoption of AI chatbots seems self-defeating. Who is publishing the information that the chatbot uses to give you 1 concise answer? Depending on the query, it could be Wikipedia or an academic journal, but for many topics the chatbot would need to draw from for-profit ad-supported websites. The chatbot user benefits from having one great answer pulled from the best sources (and no ads), but the websites that underpin the chatbot’s usefulness will no longer have monetizable traffic. In the long-term this disincentivizes people from publishing online, which would reduce the quality of not only the chatbot output but the web as a whole. Imagine local news being totally unavailable online by any means because the rise of chatbots means that nobody can make any money writing about local news. Edit: A first reaction to this might be “have the chatbot show ads and share revenue with its sources.” This probably wouldn’t solve the problem. Journalism (and many kinds of writing) would be a less attractive career if your readership consists mostly of people getting second-hand summaries via chatbot. If chatbots do become popular, I worry about a bleak future where journalism and other writing is replaced by an anonymous blob of underpaid foreign laborers whose only job is to shovel up-to-date facts into chatbot databases.
- zem 4y ago> the team points to the OpenAI GPT-3.5 terms of use, which state that the model may not be used to develop AI models that compete with OpenAI. and yet i bet openai was trained on data that they did not bother negotiating and honouring "terms of use" for. what's the difference?
- iudqnolq 4y agoUnfortunately under US law that's a significant difference. Companies can take away a dizzying variety of your rights if they simply say so. It's how they won most of the anti-scraping cases.
- meghan_rain 4y agoYes but the point is GPT-3/4 must include at least one website that prohibited scraping, thus OpenAI should not be using their GPT models, by their own logic.
- iudqnolq 4y agoBut OpenAI never clicked that "I agree" checkbox, whereas you entered into an agreement with them.
- Zuiii 4y agoNeither have most of the people who used this data to train their models[1]. "I agree" only applies to those who pressed that button. AI output is strictly not copyrightable under current law, so standard tricks to limit what people can do generally don't work [2]. [1]: https://github.com/pointnetwork/point-alpaca https://github.com/pointnetwork/point-alpaca [2]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...
- nurettin 4y agoIf we can scrape linkedin and amazon, why can't they scrape our online content?
- aitchnyu 4y agoWhat does toxic mean in "hallucinations, toxicity, and stereotyping"?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- theemathas 4y agoProbably stuff like this (note: possibly misleading URL) https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/15/23599072/microsoft-ai-bing-personality-conversations-spy-employees-webcams https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/15/23599072/microsoft-ai-bin... Early Bing AI had a tendency to be rather unhinged.
- villgax 4y agoFair use to scrape together their dataset & then cry wolf when their outputs are used to create a better competitor that runs locally lol....should not have given a free-tier but then how else would you have captured casual users
- qgin 4y agoLive by the scrape, die by the scrape.
- dang 4y agoRecent and related: The genie escapes: Stanford copies the ChatGPT AI for less than $600 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35238338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35238338 - March 2023 (145 comments) Stanford Alpaca web demo suspended “until further notice” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35200557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35200557 - March 2023 (77 comments) Stanford Alpaca, and the acceleration of on-device LLM development - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35141531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35141531 - March 2023 (66 comments) Alpaca: An Instruct Tuned LLaMA 7B – Responses on par with txt-DaVinci-3 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35139450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35139450 - March 2023 (11 comments) Alpaca: A strong open-source instruction-following model - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35136624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35136624 - March 2023 (296 comments)
- EntrePrescott 4y agoIndeed they have a problem there. For that matter, I don't see how "OpenAI" could even try to legally enforce its terms against competitors training their models using the output of "OpenAI" models… at least not without being laughed out of the court room at best or ending up having to pay enormously much more themselves at worst, given how "OpenAI" blatantly disregard any licenses on the content and data they use to train their models.
- jmiskovic 4y agoThe most frustrating thing about LLaMA "release" is that no one can make an actual product around it. Meta legal department is silent and it's anyone's guess how far the terms of use can be pushed and bent until army of lawyers buries your business into the ground. I've seen awful amount of fishy urls, magnet links, and diff files and I guess it works well enough for open source communities. This buzz and flow of amazing innovations building around LLaMA will later be repurposed when a truly open LLM + weights is released, not much is lost there. But it could be maybe x10 times the impact if startups could build their new products with the finetuned LLaMA models. It just sucks that the price was already paid - 2.6 million KWh hours of electricity and 1,000 tons of CO2 emitted into the air. Now it needs to be done again to get to same result, why?
- herdcall 4y agoLooks like it's already offline? https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/21/stanford_ai_alpaca_taken_offline/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/21/stanford_ai_alpaca_ta...