2 ms·

Did you even read the paper? It literally says how RLHF significantly reduces model creativity through three experiments. > I also think it's fairly well demon

Did you even read the paper? It literally says how RLHF significantly reduces model creativity through three experiments. > I also think it's fairly well demonstrated and accessible to train an LLM now, enough that if "creativity was obliterated by censorship", someone would have made an uncensored one that demonstrated superior outputs. No need to to that when we have base models of llama, Mistral, etc. > RLHF is also the process that makes it something you can talk to instead of an autocompleter. Not really. It aligns the model. What you're talking about is the SFT process done before RLHF where you finetune the model to behave like a conversational AI.

refulgentis 2y ago
> Did you even read the paper? ?! Are we in middle school? If so, I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say... (to wit, I quoted the paper to you to demonstrate it wasn't as the claim, i.e. "exhibit lower entropy in token predictions" != "creativity is obliterated due to censorship") > It literally says how RLHF significantly reduces model creativity through three experiments. Ah, I see now. :) I don't take it personally. I'm old enough to smile at aggro behavior kicking up sand in front of a step back to the bailey. > No need to to that when we have base models of llama, Mistral, etc. They're RLHF'd/censorship'd too. "Base model" is a colloquialism that used to mean "no RLHF, just straight sipping from scraped web pages." Now it means "the last round wasn't explicitly chat". I am using it in the "sipping from straight scraped web pages" sense. > Not really Yes, really. Btw, what does "It aligns the model" mean to you at this point in your post? RLHF was just censorship that obliterates creativity? > "[intentionally left blank]" There is 0 discussion of any of the practical effects I mentioned as rope for you to walk down from your strong claim, ex. abliteration, uncensored models, etc. > (not actually in your post at all!) Is it possible your account got hacked? There's someone else using it to post that no one should even release models anymore because they're all the same and use the same techniques.[1][2] That's hard to square with someone who thinks they're all having their creativity obliterated due to censorship. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40599838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40599838 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40600136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40600136
- osmarks 2y ago
  Mistral and Meta release "instruct" (RLHF) and not-instruct models. The non-instruct ones are in fact non-RLHF, pretraining-only ones (though they probably have ChatGPT-ish text in the dataset nowadays, and Meta might have done some extra training on evals...).

refulgentis 2y ago

> Did you even read the paper? ?! Are we in middle school? If so, I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say... (to wit, I quoted the paper to you to demonstrate it wasn't as the claim, i.e. "exhibit lower entropy in token predictions" != "creativity is obliterated due to censorship") > It literally says how RLHF significantly reduces model creativity through three experiments. Ah, I see now. :) I don't take it personally. I'm old enough to smile at aggro behavior kicking up sand in front of a step back to the bailey. > No need to to that when we have base models of llama, Mistral, etc. They're RLHF'd/censorship'd too. "Base model" is a colloquialism that used to mean "no RLHF, just straight sipping from scraped web pages." Now it means "the last round wasn't explicitly chat". I am using it in the "sipping from straight scraped web pages" sense. > Not really Yes, really. Btw, what does "It aligns the model" mean to you at this point in your post? RLHF was just censorship that obliterates creativity? > "[intentionally left blank]" There is 0 discussion of any of the practical effects I mentioned as rope for you to walk down from your strong claim, ex. abliteration, uncensored models, etc. > (not actually in your post at all!) Is it possible your account got hacked? There's someone else using it to post that no one should even release models anymore because they're all the same and use the same techniques.[1][2] That's hard to square with someone who thinks they're all having their creativity obliterated due to censorship. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40599838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40599838 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40600136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40600136

osmarks 2y ago
Mistral and Meta release "instruct" (RLHF) and not-instruct models. The non-instruct ones are in fact non-RLHF, pretraining-only ones (though they probably have ChatGPT-ish text in the dataset nowadays, and Meta might have done some extra training on evals...).