3 ms·

I would still like to have a model, open source at minimum, better yet with AGPL or so, that I train locally on my own code and also use locally exclusively on

I would still like to have a model, open source at minimum, better yet with AGPL or so, that I train locally on my own code and also use locally exclusively on my own machine and that does not require me to have a Nvidia GPU and can simply be trained on CPU. Does this exist?

steno132 3y ago
There are significant safety risks with this approach. Current foundation AI models have safeguards in place to avoid generating content that could be used for disinformation, violence, and terrorism. While not perfect, these safeguards have meant that we've been able to use ChatGPT over the last couple months, without a major backlash due to the technology being used for destructive purposes and it potentially being closed (as has happened many times before).
- Xeoncross 3y ago
  Considering governments murdered literally a million times more people than civilizations over the past hundred years, it's ironic they alone get the models without safeguards in place.
  - steno132 3y ago
    The fundamental disconnect is that we as technologists believe we are entitled to technology. That technology should be open. And, for the most part, it is. However, if you look at the most sensitive technologies, whether it's nuclear weapons or until recently cryptography, they're never open. The risk of them falling into the wrong hands is too high. AI seems to us like any other software, as people who may understand it and its limitations. However, it's also a tool for unfathomable destruction -- not now, but in the coming years. And so restrictions are almost certain to happen, and according to many, justified. You're not going to have access to "un-censored AI" in the coming years. That's unfortunately reality.
    - Xeoncross 3y ago
      That is the thing though, those who historically pose the greatest risk to mankind (the heads of governments) do and will continue to be the ones with the greatest access and use of the most dangerous technology. To put it another way, we're all concerned (at least in 1st would countries) about terrorists and hackers being the greatest threat to people's lives. So we're comfortable giving the government sole control of weapons - even though statistically that's not an accurate representation of the danger graph. I don't know if it's good marketing or propaganda, but I find it ironic that "only government can be trusted".
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  Upvoted for at least being honest that gaurdrails are for brand safety, ie OpenAI not being embarrased by their bots output and having to pull the plug.
corytheboyd 3y ago
But that’s not snake oil. Seriously though, these are also my table stakes requirements for trying any of this stuff. I’m fine waiting a couple years for it, and I’m also fine if it never happens. I just want to know if it does :)
JohannesTk 3y ago
OSS Llama2 based LLMs upcoming which can be also run on a CPU so you have full privacy (inference, not train). Why would you like to train it on your own code?
- zelphirkalt 3y ago
  I think an ever-present all-remembering model of all code I have ever written (pointing it to the directories of my own projects) would be quite nice. For example I have example repos, where I collect how to do stuff with specific programming languages. And then have that model suggest me some blocks of code that I can be sure, that are not violating any license other than my own.
edgyquant 3y ago
You could maybe throw something like this together, but it would be unusably slow
- zelphirkalt 3y ago
  Do you mean the training of it would be slow? Or its usage after training?

steno132 3y ago

There are significant safety risks with this approach. Current foundation AI models have safeguards in place to avoid generating content that could be used for disinformation, violence, and terrorism. While not perfect, these safeguards have meant that we've been able to use ChatGPT over the last couple months, without a major backlash due to the technology being used for destructive purposes and it potentially being closed (as has happened many times before).

Xeoncross 3y ago
Considering governments murdered literally a million times more people than civilizations over the past hundred years, it's ironic they alone get the models without safeguards in place.
- steno132 3y ago
  The fundamental disconnect is that we as technologists believe we are entitled to technology. That technology should be open. And, for the most part, it is. However, if you look at the most sensitive technologies, whether it's nuclear weapons or until recently cryptography, they're never open. The risk of them falling into the wrong hands is too high. AI seems to us like any other software, as people who may understand it and its limitations. However, it's also a tool for unfathomable destruction -- not now, but in the coming years. And so restrictions are almost certain to happen, and according to many, justified. You're not going to have access to "un-censored AI" in the coming years. That's unfortunately reality.
  - Xeoncross 3y ago
    That is the thing though, those who historically pose the greatest risk to mankind (the heads of governments) do and will continue to be the ones with the greatest access and use of the most dangerous technology. To put it another way, we're all concerned (at least in 1st would countries) about terrorists and hackers being the greatest threat to people's lives. So we're comfortable giving the government sole control of weapons - even though statistically that's not an accurate representation of the danger graph. I don't know if it's good marketing or propaganda, but I find it ironic that "only government can be trusted".
jazzyjackson 3y ago
Upvoted for at least being honest that gaurdrails are for brand safety, ie OpenAI not being embarrased by their bots output and having to pull the plug.

corytheboyd 3y ago

But that’s not snake oil. Seriously though, these are also my table stakes requirements for trying any of this stuff. I’m fine waiting a couple years for it, and I’m also fine if it never happens. I just want to know if it does :)

JohannesTk 3y ago

OSS Llama2 based LLMs upcoming which can be also run on a CPU so you have full privacy (inference, not train). Why would you like to train it on your own code?

zelphirkalt 3y ago
I think an ever-present all-remembering model of all code I have ever written (pointing it to the directories of my own projects) would be quite nice. For example I have example repos, where I collect how to do stuff with specific programming languages. And then have that model suggest me some blocks of code that I can be sure, that are not violating any license other than my own.

edgyquant 3y ago

You could maybe throw something like this together, but it would be unusably slow

zelphirkalt 3y ago
Do you mean the training of it would be slow? Or its usage after training?