5 ms·

I don’t see why there’s outrage. Facebook released both the raw models and a few fine tuned on chat prompts for a reason. In many commercial cases, safer is bet

I don’t see why there’s outrage. Facebook released both the raw models and a few fine tuned on chat prompts for a reason. In many commercial cases, safer is better. But you don’t want that? No problem. That’s why the raw model weights are there. It’s easy to fine tune it to your needs, like the blogpost shows.

Xelbair 3y ago
It's just not safe. It's unusable. you can't ask it normal questions to not get stonewalled by it's default censorship message - it wouldn't even work for commercial case.
- cosmojg 3y ago
  I saw them as demos rather than finished products. Kinda like, "Look, you can chat tune these if you want to."
- smoldesu 3y ago
  I wholly disagree. This is arguably close to the perfect solution: - Developers and end users can choose which model they want to use - Model distributors don't necessarily take the fall since they provide a "healthy" model alternative - The uncensored "base" model can be finetuned into whatever else is needed You have to remember, ChatGPT is censored like a Soviet history book but didn't struggle to hit hundreds of millions of users in months. This is what releases will look like from now on, and it's not even a particularly damning example.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Seems fine for most commercial use cases. Got a tech support chat bot? It doesn't need to be answering questions about religion. Also, corporate environments already tend to be super politically correct. There's already a long list of normal words I can't say at work.
  - all2 3y ago
    Can you post that list here?
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      No can do, but https://developers.google.com/style/word-list https://developers.google.com/style/word-list seems to have all of them and more, except that it's missing "hooray." One funny red-exclamation-mark example from this public list is "smartphone." Some are recommended against just cause of spelling or something, but anything that says to use a more "precise" term seems to mean it's considered offensive, kinda like in The Giver.
      - cooper_ganglia 3y ago
        Adhering to that list seems exhausting…
      - mzs 3y ago
        Here's another one: https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguag... BTW hooray is okay there, but 'hip-hip-hooray is discouraged. Germans said hep hep in the hep-hep pogrom of the early 1800s and might have said 'hep hep hurra' during the 3rd Reich. It cuts too closely though, personally I just use bravo to avoid any trouble.
        hot_gril 3y ago
        At least Stanford's rules were retracted. About hip hip, I ended up looking into that when I saw it back then. The connection to the early 1800s riots was made by a single journalist back then, and it was most likely false. More importantly, nobody really makes that connection unless they're trying to.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bilsbie 3y ago
Aren’t the raw model weights after RFHF?
- stu2b50 3y ago
  Nope. Raw models are purely trained on their corpus of text in an autoregressive manor. No chat fine tuning or rlhf.

Xelbair 3y ago

It's just not safe. It's unusable. you can't ask it normal questions to not get stonewalled by it's default censorship message - it wouldn't even work for commercial case.

cosmojg 3y ago
I saw them as demos rather than finished products. Kinda like, "Look, you can chat tune these if you want to."
smoldesu 3y ago
I wholly disagree. This is arguably close to the perfect solution: - Developers and end users can choose which model they want to use - Model distributors don't necessarily take the fall since they provide a "healthy" model alternative - The uncensored "base" model can be finetuned into whatever else is needed You have to remember, ChatGPT is censored like a Soviet history book but didn't struggle to hit hundreds of millions of users in months. This is what releases will look like from now on, and it's not even a particularly damning example.
hot_gril 3y ago
Seems fine for most commercial use cases. Got a tech support chat bot? It doesn't need to be answering questions about religion. Also, corporate environments already tend to be super politically correct. There's already a long list of normal words I can't say at work.
- all2 3y ago
  Can you post that list here?
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    No can do, but https://developers.google.com/style/word-list https://developers.google.com/style/word-list seems to have all of them and more, except that it's missing "hooray." One funny red-exclamation-mark example from this public list is "smartphone." Some are recommended against just cause of spelling or something, but anything that says to use a more "precise" term seems to mean it's considered offensive, kinda like in The Giver.
    - cooper_ganglia 3y ago
      Adhering to that list seems exhausting…
    - mzs 3y ago
      Here's another one: https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguag... BTW hooray is okay there, but 'hip-hip-hooray is discouraged. Germans said hep hep in the hep-hep pogrom of the early 1800s and might have said 'hep hep hurra' during the 3rd Reich. It cuts too closely though, personally I just use bravo to avoid any trouble.
      - hot_gril 3y ago
        At least Stanford's rules were retracted. About hip hip, I ended up looking into that when I saw it back then. The connection to the early 1800s riots was made by a single journalist back then, and it was most likely false. More importantly, nobody really makes that connection unless they're trying to.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bilsbie 3y ago

Aren’t the raw model weights after RFHF?

stu2b50 3y ago
Nope. Raw models are purely trained on their corpus of text in an autoregressive manor. No chat fine tuning or rlhf.