3 ms·

they're 140Gb folders, for each checkpoint, yes file corruption happens and as for the fraud part...it was an opensource model release that did not meet the cl

by nisten 2y ago

they're 140Gb folders, for each checkpoint, yes file corruption happens and as for the fraud part...it was an opensource model release that did not meet the claimed benchmarks when people tried to replicate it

alsodumb 2y ago
Are you telling me someone trained a huge model, and served it for hours to tons of users, and had only one instance of the checkpoint? I call BS. The model being open-source doesn't mean what they could have gotten away with, or tried to, isn't fraud.
- bhouston 2y ago
  He served tons of people from his personal laptop? How is that possible? A 70B LLM is pretty taxing even to serve a single user let along the crush of users that tried out this new hyped model no? What am I missing?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
bastawhiz 2y ago
The fraud part was multiple independent sources producing fairly indisputable evidence that their "hosted" version of the model was just running GPT and Claude. That alone is enough to completely discredit absolutely everything about this work. As for corruption, I don't believe the excuse "yes file corruption happens". They're model weights. If this was trained (in real life) it was done on some serious hardware with disks with error correction. They weren't storing the checkpoints on microSD cards. It's certainly possible that there was really unfortunate luck and there was corruption, but I don't find that excuse to be plausible. Especially when this is your business (and launch!)
ipsum2 2y ago
Definition of fraud, from Google: * wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. * a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. Since they were advertising GlaiveAI as this magical source of data where they trained a model that performed better than Claude and chatGPT, I think this firmly falls into that camp! Your definitions may be different than mine.
- nisten 2y ago
  it was a free opensource model release, the api was not for sale, there are literally over a million FREE models on huggingface.
  - alsodumb 2y ago
    Who cares if the model was free? No one said they were trying to commit fraud by releasing that model, they were trying to commit fraud by subtly advertising that their companies/products had the secret sauce to make state-of-the-art models which they obviously didn't.

by nisten 2y ago

alsodumb 2y ago

Are you telling me someone trained a huge model, and served it for hours to tons of users, and had only one instance of the checkpoint? I call BS. The model being open-source doesn't mean what they could have gotten away with, or tried to, isn't fraud.

bhouston 2y ago
He served tons of people from his personal laptop? How is that possible? A 70B LLM is pretty taxing even to serve a single user let along the crush of users that tried out this new hyped model no? What am I missing?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

bastawhiz 2y ago

The fraud part was multiple independent sources producing fairly indisputable evidence that their "hosted" version of the model was just running GPT and Claude. That alone is enough to completely discredit absolutely everything about this work. As for corruption, I don't believe the excuse "yes file corruption happens". They're model weights. If this was trained (in real life) it was done on some serious hardware with disks with error correction. They weren't storing the checkpoints on microSD cards. It's certainly possible that there was really unfortunate luck and there was corruption, but I don't find that excuse to be plausible. Especially when this is your business (and launch!)

ipsum2 2y ago

Definition of fraud, from Google: * wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. * a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. Since they were advertising GlaiveAI as this magical source of data where they trained a model that performed better than Claude and chatGPT, I think this firmly falls into that camp! Your definitions may be different than mine.

nisten 2y ago
it was a free opensource model release, the api was not for sale, there are literally over a million FREE models on huggingface.
- alsodumb 2y ago
  Who cares if the model was free? No one said they were trying to commit fraud by releasing that model, they were trying to commit fraud by subtly advertising that their companies/products had the secret sauce to make state-of-the-art models which they obviously didn't.