3 ms·

And my reasoning was that everything is an artifact of something else. The model weights can't be scrutinized? Well no one can scrutinize them. Even those who

And my reasoning was that everything is an artifact of something else. The model weights can't be scrutinized? Well no one can scrutinize them. Even those who made the model. And because you don't have the hardware to reproduce Llama anyway, even if they gave you the code to build it, you can't verify they used that code to build it. And if you have the hardware and data, you probably still wouldn't spend MILLIONS to end up... with the same exact model they gave you in the first place. Do you understand how meaningless this entire "Llama is not truly open" bullshit is?

treyd 3y ago
Your reasoning doesn't tackle the issue at hand so no I can't understand how "meaningless" because there is does actually matter. It doesn't matter that the people who produced the model can't scrutinize the results because they know what went into it and we don't. Just like how it's not very common for corporations that ship binary firmware blobs to scrutinize them in depth, since they have the upstream source/data that went into making them. They don't need to, because that's not the point. No you wouldn't end up with the exact same model weights if you trained it yourself on the same data but you could compare how the models perform when given the same prompts and to try to identify anomalous variation that could point you towards Facebook misrepresenting us about what went into the training / fine-tuning.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  Sure you can end up with the same weights. Just start with the same random weights (put it in the source!) and have a deterministic algorithm for training (put it in the source!) and put all the same copyrighted data which Facebook can't just... put in the source, because they don't have the copyright. Do I need to keep going so you see how stupid the discussion is? You think like a software developer. Everything is just buncha text, a compiler and build environment. That's not like that. There's too much shit going in, and the rights of the data are absolutely not clear. But if they had to be, the model wouldn't exist. What you want it friggin' impossible.

treyd 3y ago

Your reasoning doesn't tackle the issue at hand so no I can't understand how "meaningless" because there is does actually matter. It doesn't matter that the people who produced the model can't scrutinize the results because they know what went into it and we don't. Just like how it's not very common for corporations that ship binary firmware blobs to scrutinize them in depth, since they have the upstream source/data that went into making them. They don't need to, because that's not the point. No you wouldn't end up with the exact same model weights if you trained it yourself on the same data but you could compare how the models perform when given the same prompts and to try to identify anomalous variation that could point you towards Facebook misrepresenting us about what went into the training / fine-tuning.

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
Sure you can end up with the same weights. Just start with the same random weights (put it in the source!) and have a deterministic algorithm for training (put it in the source!) and put all the same copyrighted data which Facebook can't just... put in the source, because they don't have the copyright. Do I need to keep going so you see how stupid the discussion is? You think like a software developer. Everything is just buncha text, a compiler and build environment. That's not like that. There's too much shit going in, and the rights of the data are absolutely not clear. But if they had to be, the model wouldn't exist. What you want it friggin' impossible.