5 ms·

Absolutely a giant fan of Stability staying to actually open source licenses and not licenses that impose restrictions on what you can use it for. This is the f

by alexb_ 4y ago

Absolutely a giant fan of Stability staying to actually open source licenses and not licenses that impose restrictions on what you can use it for. This is the future of AI! Beware of any org that uses "ethical" licenses - they are not open source. Stability is one of the few organizations that actually cares about free software, you love to see it.

archerx 4y ago
Indeed thats why I pay for credits on their official site/dream studio even though I want to run things locally. My big fear is one day they’ll make a press release saying they have to stop everything because not enough funding.
cjbprime 4y ago
> These fine-tuned models are intended for research use only and are released under a noncommercial CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, in-line with Stanford’s Alpaca license. This is a no-commercial-use-allowed license; it is neither considered free software nor open source, the definitions of which disallow restrictions on what you can use the work for.
- freedomben 4y ago
  The two sentences prior are important: > We are also releasing a set of research models that are instruction fine-tuned. Initially, these fine-tuned models will use a combination of five recent open-source datasets for conversational agents: Alpaca, GPT4All, Dolly, ShareGPT, and HH. These fine-tuned models are intended for research use only and are released under a noncommercial CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, in-line with Stanford’s Alpaca license. The snippet you quoted is not talking about the main model in the announcement. It's talking about fine-tuned models based on other models. Stability has to respect the license of the originals. They cannot change it. The main model is described higher up in the post and is permissible for commercial: > Developers can freely inspect, use, and adapt our StableLM base models for commercial or research purposes, subject to the terms of the CC BY-SA-4.0 license
  - btown 4y ago
    It also appears that CC BY-SA-4.0 is GPL-compatible. Not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but it certainly seems like one could operate their own StableLM server/service and allow proprietary code to use it over a network interface, much like one could use a GPL-licensed database system. https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
- seydor 4y ago
  Not their fault, the instruct-tuned models depend on non-open data.... Which should be open however. Scraping chatGpt is legal
  - sanxiyn 4y ago
    Agreed. Scraping ChatGPT is against OpenAI terms of use and OpenAI is entitled to terminate your access immediately upon notice, but since ChatGPT output is not copyrighted (and copyrightable), output you acquired before termination should be freely redistributable. I am not sure why Stanford Alpaca authors think otherwise but they are wrong. https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use Thank you for using OpenAI! These Terms of Use apply when you use the services of OpenAI, L.L.C. (snip) By using our Services, you agree to these Terms. (snip) You may not (iii) use output from the Services to develop models that compete with OpenAI. (snip) We may terminate these Terms immediately upon notice to you if you materially breach Sections 2 (Usage Requirements).
- renewiltord 4y ago
  Interesting. A non-LLM hallucinating. And to think we used to believe that was only a property of LLMs.
  - circuit10 4y ago
    Huh? Everything they said is true, isn’t it?
    - renewiltord 4y ago
      StableLM, the model that's theirs is CC-BY-SA 4.0.
      - circuit10 4y ago
        The instruction tuned versions are under a non-commercial license though because some of the data they used is
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
"Ethics" will only ever be an excuse to lock this technology behind one companies paywall. The only ethical AI is actually free and open AI, how its trained is irrelevant imho as long as we can all benefit. The negatives of the work of individuals being used to train it outweigh the negatives of one company just doing that and holding the power within their walls.
- version_five 4y ago
  Yeah I wish there was more real investigation / analysis into who is behind various "ethical AI" pushes and what they stand to gain from it. From what I can see, many of the people involved either are invested in companies that will somehow certify your AI is ethical, or just want to stifle competition so they can catch up. Of course there's also a sprinkling of "current thing" supporters.
Xelynega 4y ago
I have to disagree. Especially in the case of LLMs where new API services are popping up all over the place, an "ethical" license like agpl that requires the source be shared for web services would would accelerate development of the space as a whole immensely.
- EamonnMR 4y ago
  I think when they say ethical they're talking about RAIL which has clauses about not doing bad guy stuff with their models, not AGPL.
- MacsHeadroom 4y ago
  The StableLM license is actually a ShareAlike license requiring sharing of modified model weights under the same permissive license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
burtonator 4y ago
I am definitely not in favor of OSS license for models >= GPT3... Not unless they're aligned well. There are all sorts of horrible use cases that these could be used for.
- coconut08 4y ago
  it is true that there are concerns relating to open source and ai, but surely the having them be closed off, manipulated and controlled untrustworthy corporations is worse.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    they like the particular techbro that runs the corporation currently. people will find all sorts of ways to lick the boot of private ownership.
  - yeck 4y ago
    Both these options don't feel good to me. Hard to really tell what is ultimately worse, when I can imagine similar outcomes when irresponsible or malicious agents have access to sufficiently powerful AI. Main positive point for open models is that we will start seeing the abuse sooner and at smaller scales. That might give us more time to build an immune system up against exploits by encouraging us to prioritize development of comprehensive AI safety practices.
- anaganisk 4y ago
  There are all sorts of stuff people use www for, but here we are.
- circuit10 4y ago
  For the worst use cases, like scams, why would they respect the license? Though that probably applies for some legal but immoral use cases
- welshwelsh 4y ago
  The ideal alignment for a computer program is to be aligned completely with the user, prioritizing their needs to the exclusion of all others.
shostack 4y ago
How is this sort of thing audited? I imagine there are all sorts of lifestyle AI businesses that won't give two shits about a license where people can't easily see or audit what is being used.
orra 4y ago
I am very happy to see them use a true FLOSS licence. However, it's a surprise to me, given Stable Diffusion is proprietary, using one of those "ethical" licences.

by alexb_ 4y ago

archerx 4y ago

Indeed thats why I pay for credits on their official site/dream studio even though I want to run things locally. My big fear is one day they’ll make a press release saying they have to stop everything because not enough funding.

cjbprime 4y ago

> These fine-tuned models are intended for research use only and are released under a noncommercial CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, in-line with Stanford’s Alpaca license. This is a no-commercial-use-allowed license; it is neither considered free software nor open source, the definitions of which disallow restrictions on what you can use the work for.

freedomben 4y ago
The two sentences prior are important: > We are also releasing a set of research models that are instruction fine-tuned. Initially, these fine-tuned models will use a combination of five recent open-source datasets for conversational agents: Alpaca, GPT4All, Dolly, ShareGPT, and HH. These fine-tuned models are intended for research use only and are released under a noncommercial CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, in-line with Stanford’s Alpaca license. The snippet you quoted is not talking about the main model in the announcement. It's talking about fine-tuned models based on other models. Stability has to respect the license of the originals. They cannot change it. The main model is described higher up in the post and is permissible for commercial: > Developers can freely inspect, use, and adapt our StableLM base models for commercial or research purposes, subject to the terms of the CC BY-SA-4.0 license
- btown 4y ago
  It also appears that CC BY-SA-4.0 is GPL-compatible. Not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but it certainly seems like one could operate their own StableLM server/service and allow proprietary code to use it over a network interface, much like one could use a GPL-licensed database system. https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
seydor 4y ago
Not their fault, the instruct-tuned models depend on non-open data.... Which should be open however. Scraping chatGpt is legal
- sanxiyn 4y ago
  Agreed. Scraping ChatGPT is against OpenAI terms of use and OpenAI is entitled to terminate your access immediately upon notice, but since ChatGPT output is not copyrighted (and copyrightable), output you acquired before termination should be freely redistributable. I am not sure why Stanford Alpaca authors think otherwise but they are wrong. https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use Thank you for using OpenAI! These Terms of Use apply when you use the services of OpenAI, L.L.C. (snip) By using our Services, you agree to these Terms. (snip) You may not (iii) use output from the Services to develop models that compete with OpenAI. (snip) We may terminate these Terms immediately upon notice to you if you materially breach Sections 2 (Usage Requirements).
renewiltord 4y ago
Interesting. A non-LLM hallucinating. And to think we used to believe that was only a property of LLMs.
- circuit10 4y ago
  Huh? Everything they said is true, isn’t it?
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    StableLM, the model that's theirs is CC-BY-SA 4.0.
    - circuit10 4y ago
      The instruction tuned versions are under a non-commercial license though because some of the data they used is
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

"Ethics" will only ever be an excuse to lock this technology behind one companies paywall. The only ethical AI is actually free and open AI, how its trained is irrelevant imho as long as we can all benefit. The negatives of the work of individuals being used to train it outweigh the negatives of one company just doing that and holding the power within their walls.

version_five 4y ago
Yeah I wish there was more real investigation / analysis into who is behind various "ethical AI" pushes and what they stand to gain from it. From what I can see, many of the people involved either are invested in companies that will somehow certify your AI is ethical, or just want to stifle competition so they can catch up. Of course there's also a sprinkling of "current thing" supporters.

Xelynega 4y ago

I have to disagree. Especially in the case of LLMs where new API services are popping up all over the place, an "ethical" license like agpl that requires the source be shared for web services would would accelerate development of the space as a whole immensely.

EamonnMR 4y ago
I think when they say ethical they're talking about RAIL which has clauses about not doing bad guy stuff with their models, not AGPL.
MacsHeadroom 4y ago
The StableLM license is actually a ShareAlike license requiring sharing of modified model weights under the same permissive license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

burtonator 4y ago

I am definitely not in favor of OSS license for models >= GPT3... Not unless they're aligned well. There are all sorts of horrible use cases that these could be used for.

coconut08 4y ago
it is true that there are concerns relating to open source and ai, but surely the having them be closed off, manipulated and controlled untrustworthy corporations is worse.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  they like the particular techbro that runs the corporation currently. people will find all sorts of ways to lick the boot of private ownership.
- yeck 4y ago
  Both these options don't feel good to me. Hard to really tell what is ultimately worse, when I can imagine similar outcomes when irresponsible or malicious agents have access to sufficiently powerful AI. Main positive point for open models is that we will start seeing the abuse sooner and at smaller scales. That might give us more time to build an immune system up against exploits by encouraging us to prioritize development of comprehensive AI safety practices.
anaganisk 4y ago
There are all sorts of stuff people use www for, but here we are.
circuit10 4y ago
For the worst use cases, like scams, why would they respect the license? Though that probably applies for some legal but immoral use cases
welshwelsh 4y ago
The ideal alignment for a computer program is to be aligned completely with the user, prioritizing their needs to the exclusion of all others.

shostack 4y ago

How is this sort of thing audited? I imagine there are all sorts of lifestyle AI businesses that won't give two shits about a license where people can't easily see or audit what is being used.

orra 4y ago

I am very happy to see them use a true FLOSS licence. However, it's a surprise to me, given Stable Diffusion is proprietary, using one of those "ethical" licences.