5 ms·

It's immediately become difficult to untangle the licensing here. Is this safe for production use - I have no idea if I can expect a DMCA from Mark if I step ou

by Mizza 4y ago

It's immediately become difficult to untangle the licensing here. Is this safe for production use - I have no idea if I can expect a DMCA from Mark if I step out of bounds with this or other post-Alpaca models, unless I'm missing something important. Meta really botched the Llama release.

rnosov 4y ago
This has nothing to do with facebook. The foundational model here is GPT-J which is opensource and safe to use. Sadly, it is inferior to state-of-the-art models such as LLaMA.
- Mizza 4y ago
  But they're "using data from Alpaca". I don't know what that means, isn't Alpaca using data generated by ChatGPT, which isn't "clean" to use? Or data from Facebook, which isn't "clean" to use? I'm drowning.
  - rnosov 4y ago
    They are instruction tuning it using the dataset released by stanford-alpaca team. The dataset itself is synthetic (created using GPT-3) and somewhat noisy and in my view can be easily recreated if OpenAI ever tries to go after it (which is very unlikely). Anyway, facebook has nothing to do with anything used by this project.
    - Mizza 4y ago
      So, this is a "dirty" model, in that is was created by data which violated OpenAI ToS. Obviously, this kind of violation is basically fine if you're a massive corporation who the rules don't apply to, but it's a huge risk if you're a small fish.
      - sebzim4500 4y ago
        That's between OpenAI and the people that recorded the data. No one else needs to care.
      - rnosov 4y ago
        ToS are not the law. It would be similar to your power company claiming copyright over the code written using "their" electricity. Not going to happen. I wouldn't be too concerned.
        Spivak 4y ago
        Especially when OpenAI explicitly doesn't have a claim to copyright on the model output.
        sp332 4y ago
        No, but you could be banned from using OpenAI products in the future, which seems like quite a liability for a researcher or company.
        rnosov 4y ago
        That would be anticompetitive practice that is actually against the law in many countries[1]. In the unlikely event of OpenAI ever engaging in such things they will be sued into oblivion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal
        iudqnolq 4y ago
        No it wouldn't. Wikipedia has a crap definition that inexplicably focuses on cartels where multiple companies coordinate the refusal, which this definitely isn't. The FTC has a better definition for US law [1]. Companies routinely ban users for ToS violations. Just look at any thread about Google on here to see people complaining about it. [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
  - bilekas 4y ago
    I don't know the full details but Alpaca is from Stanford and only based on the LLamA (not a derivative work afaik). That said : Also Meta's licensing here https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE Can't be sure what that license actually reffers to, the language model or just the tooling in the Git Repo. I agree its a minefield, but with Meta I would eer on the side of caution.
bilekas 4y ago
> Meta really botched the Llama release. It's no surprise really though, from what I see they recognised some way to monitize and rolled back their commitment. But this Dolly doesn't depend on Llama (unless I'M missing something), so you don't have to use it.
leobg 4y ago
Why? Dolly had nothing to do with Llama or its weights. Besides: How would anyone ever know which model generated the output you are serving? AFAIK there is no fingerprint in any model’s output. And even if there was, it would probably be destroyed by fine tuning “over it”.
- stametseater 4y ago
  > AFAIK there is no fingerprint in any model’s output. It seems like there easily could be. What if some of the data they trained it on didn't exist anywhere else except in the training set, and was put there specifically for this purpose? For instance they could have taught it a few poems that don't exist anywhere else. If you can coax the LLM of unknown origin into reciting those poems back to you, you know where it came from.
  - kurthr 4y ago
    Even easier have a small set of 8-10 character gibberish tokens it's trained on in a particular contexts (eg a non-existent poem). Then feed it one or several poems and see if a gibberish token pops out.
    - eigenvalue 4y ago
      I think they call these canary GUIDs. If you manage to generate one from an LLM then you can conclude with certainty that the model saw that document during training.
- neilv 4y ago
  > Besides: How would anyone ever know which model generated the output you are serving? There's precedent for "whatever you can get away with" in tech companies, but establishing a culture of that at the start of this new big change could end up undesirable for most people. For example, it could relieve demand for more legal and sustainable ways, until it's too late. (Look at the history of digital entertainment media piracy and DRM and legislation, for example. Or look at the history of software piracy, where some big companies seem to actually want their product to be pirated, partly because it builds a bigger moat against competitors, and they can legally strongarm some of those pirates later.)
pwendell 4y ago
Yes it's nuanced, but will be simplified going forward. This uses a fully open source (liberally licensed) model and we also open sourced (liberally licensed) our own training code. However, the uptraining dataset of ~50,000 samples was generated with OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, and depending on how one interprets their terms, commercial use of the resulting model may violate the OpenAI terms of use. For that reason we are advising only noncommercial use of this model for now. The next step here is to create a set of uptraining samples that is 100% open. Stay tuned.
- Taek 4y ago
  Are you in touch with the OpenAssistant team? I believe they already have a more or less complete set of samples (100,000!) that were produced in an open environment and aren't encumbered by any licensing.
  - pwendell 4y ago
    No I haven't heard of that, we'll engage with that team. This is exactly what we need will look into it.
babyyoda 4y ago
Given that Alpaca strictly specified that they released purely for academic use and any commercial use was prohibited given doing so would violate terms of service, I don’t see this as viable for use. Looks like marketing gimmick

by Mizza 4y ago

rnosov 4y ago

This has nothing to do with facebook. The foundational model here is GPT-J which is opensource and safe to use. Sadly, it is inferior to state-of-the-art models such as LLaMA.

Mizza 4y ago
But they're "using data from Alpaca". I don't know what that means, isn't Alpaca using data generated by ChatGPT, which isn't "clean" to use? Or data from Facebook, which isn't "clean" to use? I'm drowning.
- rnosov 4y ago
  They are instruction tuning it using the dataset released by stanford-alpaca team. The dataset itself is synthetic (created using GPT-3) and somewhat noisy and in my view can be easily recreated if OpenAI ever tries to go after it (which is very unlikely). Anyway, facebook has nothing to do with anything used by this project.
  - Mizza 4y ago
    So, this is a "dirty" model, in that is was created by data which violated OpenAI ToS. Obviously, this kind of violation is basically fine if you're a massive corporation who the rules don't apply to, but it's a huge risk if you're a small fish.
    - sebzim4500 4y ago
      That's between OpenAI and the people that recorded the data. No one else needs to care.
    - rnosov 4y ago
      ToS are not the law. It would be similar to your power company claiming copyright over the code written using "their" electricity. Not going to happen. I wouldn't be too concerned.
      - Spivak 4y ago
        Especially when OpenAI explicitly doesn't have a claim to copyright on the model output.
      - sp332 4y ago
        No, but you could be banned from using OpenAI products in the future, which seems like quite a liability for a researcher or company.
        rnosov 4y ago
        That would be anticompetitive practice that is actually against the law in many countries[1]. In the unlikely event of OpenAI ever engaging in such things they will be sued into oblivion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal
        iudqnolq 4y ago
        No it wouldn't. Wikipedia has a crap definition that inexplicably focuses on cartels where multiple companies coordinate the refusal, which this definitely isn't. The FTC has a better definition for US law [1]. Companies routinely ban users for ToS violations. Just look at any thread about Google on here to see people complaining about it. [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
- bilekas 4y ago
  I don't know the full details but Alpaca is from Stanford and only based on the LLamA (not a derivative work afaik). That said : Also Meta's licensing here https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE Can't be sure what that license actually reffers to, the language model or just the tooling in the Git Repo. I agree its a minefield, but with Meta I would eer on the side of caution.

bilekas 4y ago

> Meta really botched the Llama release. It's no surprise really though, from what I see they recognised some way to monitize and rolled back their commitment. But this Dolly doesn't depend on Llama (unless I'M missing something), so you don't have to use it.

leobg 4y ago

Why? Dolly had nothing to do with Llama or its weights. Besides: How would anyone ever know which model generated the output you are serving? AFAIK there is no fingerprint in any model’s output. And even if there was, it would probably be destroyed by fine tuning “over it”.

stametseater 4y ago
> AFAIK there is no fingerprint in any model’s output. It seems like there easily could be. What if some of the data they trained it on didn't exist anywhere else except in the training set, and was put there specifically for this purpose? For instance they could have taught it a few poems that don't exist anywhere else. If you can coax the LLM of unknown origin into reciting those poems back to you, you know where it came from.
- kurthr 4y ago
  Even easier have a small set of 8-10 character gibberish tokens it's trained on in a particular contexts (eg a non-existent poem). Then feed it one or several poems and see if a gibberish token pops out.
  - eigenvalue 4y ago
    I think they call these canary GUIDs. If you manage to generate one from an LLM then you can conclude with certainty that the model saw that document during training.
neilv 4y ago
> Besides: How would anyone ever know which model generated the output you are serving? There's precedent for "whatever you can get away with" in tech companies, but establishing a culture of that at the start of this new big change could end up undesirable for most people. For example, it could relieve demand for more legal and sustainable ways, until it's too late. (Look at the history of digital entertainment media piracy and DRM and legislation, for example. Or look at the history of software piracy, where some big companies seem to actually want their product to be pirated, partly because it builds a bigger moat against competitors, and they can legally strongarm some of those pirates later.)

pwendell 4y ago

Yes it's nuanced, but will be simplified going forward. This uses a fully open source (liberally licensed) model and we also open sourced (liberally licensed) our own training code. However, the uptraining dataset of ~50,000 samples was generated with OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, and depending on how one interprets their terms, commercial use of the resulting model may violate the OpenAI terms of use. For that reason we are advising only noncommercial use of this model for now. The next step here is to create a set of uptraining samples that is 100% open. Stay tuned.

Taek 4y ago
Are you in touch with the OpenAssistant team? I believe they already have a more or less complete set of samples (100,000!) that were produced in an open environment and aren't encumbered by any licensing.
- pwendell 4y ago
  No I haven't heard of that, we'll engage with that team. This is exactly what we need will look into it.

babyyoda 4y ago

Given that Alpaca strictly specified that they released purely for academic use and any commercial use was prohibited given doing so would violate terms of service, I don’t see this as viable for use. Looks like marketing gimmick