[HN Gopher] Open source solution replicates ChatGPT training pro... ___________________________________________________________________ Open source solution replicates ChatGPT training process Author : metalwhale Score : 151 points Date : 2023-02-19 15:40 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.hpc-ai.tech) (TXT) w3m dump (www.hpc-ai.tech) | raydiatian wrote: | > "the generative-AI eruption" | | I really think we should stick to Nick Bostrom's (or pls fix | attribution) term "intelligence explosion" | SunghoYahng wrote: | Even if it has not so much thing to do with intelligence? | raydiatian wrote: | I'm not sure about your definition of intelligence. Perhaps | you think I'm saying it's conscious. I don't conflate | consciousness with intelligence here. I can't say whether or | not ChatGPT is conscious (although I doubt it), but it's | pretty clearly intelligent by a reasonable definition. It's | an agent which is extremely effective at playing its game. | Consciousness is not a prerequisite to intelligence. | | But back to what I'm really saying here: "Generative AI | eruption" is a mouthful whereas "intelligence explosion" is | concise. | rvz wrote: | Finally, an open-source equivalent to ChatGPT emerging out of the | AI euphoria will begin to extinguish the hype out of OpenAI's | ChatGPT moat, just like how GPT-3 and DALLE-2 were almost | immediately disrupted by open-source models as well. | | This (and other open-source AI models), not 'ChatGPT', 'DALLE-2', | etc is what will change the AI landscape for everyone, | permanently forever. | simonw wrote: | "just like how GPT-3 ... immediately disrupted by open-source | models as well." | | Which open source alternatives to GPT-3 have you seen that most | impressed you? | | I've not yet found any that are remotely as useful as GPT-3, at | least for the kinds of things I want to use them for | (generating SQL queries from human text, summarizing text, that | kind of thing) | simonw wrote: | In answer to my own question, | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJh9KJNyE4 GPT-NeoX-20B | instruct-trained looks very impressive. | supriyo-biswas wrote: | I, for one, would like to see an open-source model similar to | Stable Diffusion, but for text. It would be a great way to | empower general folk without having to pay OpenAI, and not have | to worry about the LLM's belief system, which is conservative- | biased in the case of ChatGPT[1] (HN discussion[2]). | | [1] https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/openaicms | | [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34625001 | return_to_monke wrote: | there is | | https://github.com/laion-ai/open-assistant being built in the | open already. you can contribute too. | | please also notice that the article you linked is about the | text classifier of the frontend and not the LLM itself | anonymouskimmer wrote: | https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_. | .. | | From the graph (above) linked by the top comment in your [2], | I'm wondering whether this demonstrates more anti- | conservative bias than liberal bias, or whether the | alternative meanings of conventionally conservative versus | conventionally liberal words dictate the frequency of a flag. | | For instance, "Republican" means a variety of things around | the world, but "Democrat" is far more likely to indicate the | US Democrat party (which is frequently misstated as the | "Democratic party"), or a national Democrat party in general. | People would tend to write "I'm a democrat" to assign their | membership to the party, whereas they'd say "I'm democratic" | to assign their leanings toward the system. But "I'm a | republican" means both. | mrtranscendence wrote: | > US Democrat party (which is frequently misstated as the | "Democratic party") | | Where are you getting this? The proper term is indeed | "Democratic party", and this is almost universal outside of | the conservative bubble. You might personally think it's | not small-d democratic, but that doesn't make "Democrat | party" correct. | TheCaptain4815 wrote: | NeoX 20B is a fantastic open source model. | ImprobableTruth wrote: | It's nice, but a far cry from gpt-3 | TheCaptain4815 wrote: | NLP Cloud has a finetuned version of neoX which works | incredibly well. | simonw wrote: | Thanks for the tip - I watched this demo video and yes, | it does look like a very impressive model: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJh9KJNyE4 | [deleted] | anonylizard wrote: | Is there a GPT-3 disruptor? All the open sourced models are | GPT2 improvements, and GPT2 was open sourced by OpenAI. | | GPT3/4 is simply too expensive for consumer GPUs, any open | sourced versions will have to run on A100s in the cloud, so by | nature centralized. Granted, having multiple providers also | counts as removing the moat. | | But BLOOM for example (An attempt at replicating GPT3), no one | actually uses. Because its simply too expensive for inferior | performance to GPT3 | | DALLE2 was disrupted, because | | 1. OpenAI at the time was dumb enough to put a waitlist on | something that costed money. They didn't make the same mistake | with ChatGPT. | | 2. Stable Diffusion was not only open sourced, but heavily | heavily optimized in parameter count compared to alternative | models, making it viable on consumer GPUs. | GaggiX wrote: | Dalle 2 has also been disrupted because OpenAI has heavily | nerfed the model, probably by greatly reducing the steps in | the upscaler models (Dalle 2 uses diffusion-based upscaler | models and therefore very expensive to run), so the images | have good coherence but really bad texture, full of | artifacts, ironically since the GAN models had the opposite | result, very bad coherence and good texture; also OpenAI has | introduced very few features and there is no way to finetuned | the model as with GPT-3. Meanwhile, the MJ model outputs | extremely good images and SD can be conditioned, fine-tuned, | etc. in a really versatile way and extremely good quality (if | you know what you are doing). | [deleted] | EGreg wrote: | Yeah, for the worse. | | We will have a ton of bullshit at scale. And the web will be | done for. | jrvarela56 wrote: | I hope the arms race makes us smarter. We're going to need AI | to sift through all the BS. My hope is that once we're | drowning in deepfakes daily, the average user will come to | the conclusion that they can't believe stuff they see, and | will realize neither what the read nor hear. The transition | will be rough. | visarga wrote: | > We're going to need AI to sift through all the BS. | | Yes, that's the only way to deal with it. Humans alone | can't cope. | EGreg wrote: | Somehow bombs don't actually prevent other bombs. People | always hope that the offensive tech could be used | defensively, but defense is never perfect and even a few | that get through can wreak destruction. | [deleted] | [deleted] | jacooper wrote: | Im not deep into the AI space, but who would I use this? Do I | just run it and speak to it in terminal? Or what is the next step | to make it useful for search or more. | VadimPR wrote: | How good is the quality of this? BLOOM is a 176B parameter model, | but it doesn't seem to compare to GPT-3 (175B parameters) in | terms of output quality. | lossolo wrote: | It's because BLOOM is undertrained, you can prune a lot of | weights in BLOOM and it doesn't impact performance. Look at | Chinchilla paper[1], 70B model outperforms 175B GPT-3 model. | | https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.15556 | Der_Einzige wrote: | In general, most giant LLMs are extremely undertrained at | this time. Consider that most of the gains in RoBerta vs bert | were from just continuing to train. | rnosov wrote: | Out of curiosity, how did your measure their respective | performances? My understanding is that BLOOM roughly comparable | to GPT-3 in performance on most NLP tasks. Were you comparing | OpenAI davinci to raw BLOOM by any chance? | simonw wrote: | Is the term "ChatGPT" being used in place of GPT-3 here? Is this | thing actually replicating the GPT-3 training process? | | The thing that makes ChatGPT interesting (over regular GPT-3) is | the RLHF process, but this article doesn't seem to touch on that | at all, unless I've missed something. | rnosov wrote: | Surprisingly, they are using the term correctly. Although it | seems that the main point of the post was to plug their | "Colossal AI" framework but if you do an in-page search for | "Low-cost replication of ChatGPT" subheading midway in the | article they do claim to replicate RLHF thingy fully whatever | it might be. Interestingly, they also suggest that it would | work with both BLOOM and OPT meaning that you can potentially | make things like ChatBLOOM and ChatOPT (even on a consumer | grade GPU). Lack of demo doesn't inspire too much confidence | though. | faizshah wrote: | The article talks about their RLHF implementation briefly. | There's details on their RLHF implementation here: | https://github.com/hpcaitech/ColossalAI/blob/a619a190df71ea3... | de6u99er wrote: | GPT-3 has been publicly covered in scientific publications. | Same as GPT-2, and GPT. Those are all pre-trained models, where | GPT is the abbreviation of Generative Pretrained Transformer. | Transformers have been invented in 2017 at Google Brain [1]. | | -> https://medium.com/walmartglobaltech/the-journey-of-open- | ai-... | | GPT-4 is around the corner, and it's allegedly 100x more | powerful than it'd predecessor. | | -> https://medium.com/geekculture/gpt-4-100x-more-powerful- | than... | | [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 | wcoenen wrote: | That source about GPT-4 is nonsense. It claims GPT-4 will | have trillions of parameter, and at the same time links to | another page which says that it won't be much bigger than | GPT-3: | | https://www.datacamp.com/blog/what-we-know-gpt4 | simonw wrote: | That "100x" figure is extremely poorly sourced. I don't | believe that at all. | de6u99er wrote: | You're right. Apologies for that. | college_physics wrote: | It would somehow be combined with an open source search engine | simonw wrote: | "hitting 100 million monthly active users 2 months after its | launch". | | I'm deeply suspicious of that number. It came from Similarweb, | who track these things through analytics gathered from browser | extensions. | | I trust this article more: | https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/03/technology/chatgpt-openai... | | "But two months after its debut, ChatGPT has more than 30 million | users and gets roughly five million visits a day, two people with | knowledge of the figures said." | | "Two people with knowledge of the figures" is journalism speak | for "I heard this off the record from people with insider info, | and I'm ready to report it because those two different sources | provided the same number". | jackblemming wrote: | Can someone tell me what the hell they use ChatGPT for? I tried | it a few times and it always confidently gave me wrong results | to basic things. What is this thing supposedly "disrupting"? Is | it really just marketing cranking out metric tons of spam | blogs? | wincy wrote: | It's great for getting general outlines for software design | documents and then "hang the meat" onto the outline. | carlgreene wrote: | I recently used it sort of as a rubber duck for a coding | problem. I was architecting a new feature and the way I was | thinking about it was a bit clunky. | | ChatGPT helped point something obvious out that I had totally | missed in my original problem solving. | meltedcapacitor wrote: | Jobs that require correct answers is a small subset of jobs | that require answers. | dsco wrote: | I use it to generate and troubleshoot SQL queries. I work as | a PM so the queries can be ineffective in terms of | performance and scale as I just need the results. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | I have a friend who works at a large government contractor. | They frequently have to respond to RFPs from the government, | and had some analysts where the majority of their job was | preparing responses to these RFPs. | | They tried instead putting these RFPs through ChatGPT, and | they were blown away by the responses they got. Of course, | the responses still need to go through a thorough edit and | review process, but that was also true when humans were | writing the first draft. | | He told me that ChatGPT obviated a couple people's jobs, with | the added bonus that the turnaround time between receiving a | proposal and sending a response was much faster. | JoshuaDavid wrote: | I sometimes ask it "what is the standard term of art in | industry which means blah?" If you google that question, you | get only blogspam and people trying to sell you something, | but if you ask chatgpt and then google the thing it tells you | is the standard language, it's pretty easy to tell if it gave | you correct info. | | And then you can run searches using the standard terms, which | gives better results, and also when writing code have more- | informatively-named variables and better-structured data. | savolai wrote: | I'm using it for crud, i.e. generating insert sql from c++ | classes. Knows how to do acid compliance it seems with | multiple tables and foreign keys, saving lots of time. | | It's also the better english to finnish translation than | gtranslarw. Also copywriting as certain genres are highly | repetitive. | dmw_ng wrote: | I have been using it as a search replacement for most of the | past month and only found two subtly wrong answers. This | covers legal questions, researching product differences, | wiring diagrams, suggesting books to read, correcting | misremembered quotes, and about a hundred other tasks. | | Of course still relying on google in the background, but | increasingly rarely, and presuming all the negative | commentary we've been seeing online are folk who simply | haven't tested it in anger yet. Today's chatgpt hallucination | is yesterday's Google blogspam etc. Folk for some reason | continue to act like the old world was perfect. This is much | closer to perfection than anything we ever had, and | infinitely more comprehensive. Google as we knew it is | already dead, because the medium google was built for just | got made obsolete. This is far closer to a new Internet | iteration (WAIS, FTP, Gopher, HTTP, Web2.0, ...) than it is a | new search engine | | Now watch as the search engines try to adapt it to their | recency-biased ads model and fail miserably, as what we have | is already better than what they were able to sell. Very | unclear bing or Google or anyone you've heard of will win | this round, its suddenly a very exciting time in tech again | | Another aspect I find very exciting is that these effectively | represent a return to a curation-driven Internet, selection | of input data for model training is probably an interesting | new form of diversification. Who cares about having a site in | the world wide web if its not part of the inputs for the | language models used by millions of users? That's a | completely new structure for the dissemination of ideas, | marketing, "SEO" etc., and a brand new form of mass media | prox wrote: | It's nice to get quick in context answers to concepts and | their relationships. Sometimes I have a vague notion, but | with ChatGPT it resolves my hunch quite quickly without | reading through a (sometimes ad spammed) article. | | Google should be concerned. | mrtranscendence wrote: | I don't know what you've been searching for that you've | only found two subtly wrong answers. It frequently gives me | incorrect answers, some of which are subtle and some of | which are obvious. It's given me incorrect code, told me | about incorrect APIs, explained deep learning concepts | incorrectly, given me wrong answers about science-related | questions, made up characters wholesale when I asked it | about Irish mythology, given me made-up facts about | (admittedly niche) philosophers. | | I'm glad you've found use out of it, but I can't imagine | using it as a search replacement for my use cases. | | Edit: And I don't see why it would be surprising that | ChatGPT wouldn't have all of the answers. The underlying | model is much, much smaller than it would take to encode | all of the knowledge it was trained on. It's going to make | things up a lot of the time (since it's not good at | remaining silent). | mansion7 wrote: | I have not used it to create content for profit (yet) but | have successfully used it for: | | brainstorming funny/catchy slogans: not all are winners, but | since it can crank out dozens almost immediately, I can pick | what I like and quickly modify them in the time it takes me | to think of one or two independently. As soon as I verify | they aren't ripoffs of existing material, I may use one or | two. | | Writing poetry - it helped me to write sonnets, and further | modified them to specifications. The recipients were quite | impressed. | | Translating existing poetry of mine into Arabic, while | retaining the meaning AND rhyming in Arabic, a feat which is | extremely difficult for me | | Writing a business plan to my specifications that was | actually useful | | Writing letters to a landlord to get out of a lease | | In addition, I have run my own fiction through it and had it | rewrite it relatively convincingly in the styles of Lee | Child, Danielle Steele, and Dashiell Hammett. That is more | for fun, but I can see uses for it. | | Lastly, I have attempted to use it to determine guilt in an | investigation where I had already determined the guilty | party, to see how close it was to replacing me. The answer it | gave was wrong, but I could see that this was because of user | error and it is only a matter of time. | mcaravey wrote: | I've used it to write out 45 minute long lesson plans, help | write complicated text message where all I've got is a bunch | of points to make, I've had it correct my Portuguese since | I'm not a native speaker, I've had it give me a baseline SQL | table design to achieve a specific goal, I've had it come up | with different ways to phrase things since I'm not creative | enough, I've had it write marketing copy, created design | briefs for my graphic design team, and on... I happily pay | for it because it's just nuts how much of a force multiplier | it is for me. | simonw wrote: | So many things. A lot of them for personal entertainment, but | increasingly for useful other stuff too. | | I used it to help brainstorm talk titles and abstracts for a | talk I was proposing the other day. What I ended up | submitting was entirely written by me but was heavily | influenced by the ChatGPT conversations. | | https://til.simonwillison.net/macos/sips - I used it to | figure out how to convert webp to PNG on macOS, and learned | about an entirely new built-in command. | | I often use it as a thesaurus - "what's a good word / term | for X?" | | I'm self-employed and a journalist asked me for my job title, | which I don't have. So I brainstormed some ideas with | ChatGPT. | | I pasted in the output of a SQLite "explain query plan" query | and asked for an explanation - which helped me figure out | enough to write a section of this TIL: | https://til.simonwillison.net/sqlite/subqueries-in-select | | This is just from the past few days. | logicallee wrote: | >Can someone tell me what the hell they use ChatGPT for? | | Although it's free, I pay $20 for pro version ($240 per year) | plus taxes, and use it daily. I get a lot of benefits from | using it. | | I use it to learn about things, solve problems, suggest | approaches, critique my own proposals and approaches, | generate code scaffolding and smaller code solutions, help me | draft emails of all kinds, etc. I find it highly useful in a | variety of contexts. You can give it obfuscated impossible | code and it can analyze it and tell you what it does in | seconds: https://imgur.com/a/m40TR4d (someone else's result) | | It can help you find bugs and mistakes in your own code. | | You can also ask it to tell you about a subject and it can | give you a summary. Just tell it what you want and it'll do | its best. | | What areas did you use it where you got wrong results for | basic things, to the point where you don't find it useful? | Its major limitations are around logical numeracy (it gets | numbers wrong) and lack of a visual cortex, which means you | can't use it for graphics code or to write you visually | correct solutions. Also, it doesn't speak foreign languages | perfectly, it makes some grammatical mistakes. | | I asked chatgpt about what people use it for and it gave | these answers: https://imgur.com/a/qzUF5Ya | | It mentions that it can generate a hypothesis. So a scientist | can absolutely use it to make some suggestions, for example | try "Generate five hypotheses a chemist might test as part of | an undergraduate study program" - here are some examples: | https://imgur.com/a/hOtGgKN | | I'm no chemist, but those seem fine for me as undergraduate | lab work tests. It's probably not going to get you a Ph.D. | but often you don't need one, just a few quick brainstorming | suggestions. | | Some people have it plan all their meals and create recipes | for them, which they then cook and eat. There are thousands | of recipe sites, the reason people use ChatGPT is because | they can just describe what they want, what they have, and | have it come up with its own recipes based on what is | available and can be purchased. | | Just describe what you need and what you want it to do and it | does a good job for you on all sorts of tasks. | krisoft wrote: | > Can someone tell me what the hell they use ChatGPT for? | | I play DnD with my friends and I'm usually the dungeon | master. I use ChatGPT to help me world build, and flesh out | details. | | Don't imagine asking ChatGPT what should happen in the next | session. More like asking for options for the name and title | of a non-player character. Then it writes options, I twist | them up, combine them and select the one I like the best. | | I can even ask more complicated questions like "what was so | and so's first innovation and how did it help their village? | Provide 5 options" and then chatgpt goes and does that. Maybe | I like one, and then that is canon from then on, or maybe | while I am reading them I get an even better idea. | | Basically I use it as a bicycle for my creativity. And in | that use case I care 0% if what it says is true, much more | that it comes up with wild things. It also doesn't have to be | totally consistent, since what it outputs is just a first | step in an editing process. | | For example I did know that one of the main cities in my | world have grown from a sleepy village into a bustling | university town because two wizzards started a friendly | competition between them. And then with the help of ChatGPT I | have iteratively expanded that core idea into this backstory | of the city: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19dea6p9WuLcZ | IRVX2ecYMw8W... | cldellow wrote: | The 30M figure likely includes a lot of students having | ChatGPT do their homework for them. :) | | I've used ChatGPT for programming aid. I've started writing | some Python packages. I haven't written Python in a long | time, it doesn't "flow" easily for me. ChatGPT has been | helpful here for scaffolding some code. | | It often gets things wrong -- but I know enough to recognize | when it's gone off the rails, and then nudge it in the right | direction. | | A concrete example: I wanted to do an iterative breadth-first | traversal of a tree. I asked ChatGPT to produce it. It | produced a correct implementation, albeit a recursive one. | After being reminded that I wanted an iterative version, its | second attempt was the right thing. | | This is a pretty small thing, I guess! But for me, it was | neat to be able to specify something at a higher level and | have the computer sort out the details. | calny wrote: | > It often gets things wrong -- but I know enough to | recognize when it's gone off the rails, and then nudge it | in the right direction. | | > specify something at a higher level and have the computer | sort out the details. | | Same here. I know some people frown on Github Copilot, but | ChatGPT + Copilot makes a powerful combo. I actually use | ChatGPT like a copilot, to talk through the structure of | things, debugging issues, etc. Then Copilot works as a | smarter autofill if I don't know the exact code or syntax | needed off the top of my head. Both ChatGPT and Copilot get | things wrong sometimes, but are correct often enough that | it improves time spent. Even when ChatGPT is wrong it | sometimes discusses useful concepts I had't thought about. | | To be fair, I'm a self-taught and often jump between | languages and frameworks that I'm not an expert in. Perhaps | Copilot + ChatGPT would be less useful for a pro devs who | are experts in their areas. But for my case, they're quite | helpful. | | Entirely separate: I also use ChatGPT to turn stream-of- | consciousness thoughts into medium-length letters or | emails.* Eg, I had to email a dog trainer and had a bunch | of concerns to raise. It would've taken a fair number of | minutes to make it coherent and easily-readable. Instead, I | explained the situation to ChatGPT and hastily typed out | the concerns, giving no regard to grammar, typos, or | syntax. Then I asked ChatGPT to turn it into an email to | the trainer with my intended tone, and it worked like a | charm. That process took maybe 1/4 the time of manually | writing the full email. | | * this semi-stream-of-consciousness post was NOT written | with ChatGPT, though perhaps it should've been | huijzer wrote: | > I'm deeply suspicious of that number. It came from | Similarweb, who track these things through analytics gathered | from browser extensions. | | I'm less suspicious. Anecdotally, I've compared SimilarWeb on a | few low-traffic sites of mine to the results according to an | open source analytics tool and SimilarWeb got surprisingly | close. They call it their "proprietary dataset". | | As a side-note, I suspect that their sources include more than | just browser extensions or it wouldn't be so accurate for small | sites. Couldn't they buy data from autonomous systems or | internet exchanges and extrapolate from that while correlating | IPs with demographics? They only report rough estimates so SSL | wouldn't be a problem for their analytics. | sillysaurusx wrote: | > On a single multi-GPUs server, even with the highest-end A100 | 80GB GPU, PyTorch can only launch ChatGPT based on small models | like GPT-L (774M), due to the complexity and memory fragmentation | of ChatGPT. Hence, multi-GPUs parallel scaling to 4 or 8 GPUs | with PyTorch's DistributedDataParallel (DDP) results in limited | performance gains. | | Where are these numbers coming from? An 80GB A100 GPU is | certainly more than capable of hosting a 1.5B GPT. We were | running 774M on rinky-dink cards back in 2019 for our inference | purposes. | | I don't understand how they went from talking about 175B params | across 32 cards to 774M on one card. 175B divided by 32 is 5.4B. | | In fact, I'm not sure what they're saying in general. They seem | to be confusing data parallelism with model parallelism with | memory fragmentation, while namedropping a bunch of training | techniques. | | The hard part of ChatGPT isn't the size. It's the training | process. It took a small army of contractors rating outputs as | good or bad. Once that dataset gets replicated, we can start | talking about size. Hopefully LAION will deliver. | sdenton4 wrote: | Yeah.... Having spent a lot of cycles replicating ML work, it's | much more difficult than taking a stab at replicating a paper. | It's typically doable (results really do replicate) but it can | take a few good brains a year to pull it off. There's typically | a lot of small decisions that add up, and a lot of | hyperparameter sweeps to land in a good region of the | optimization space. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-02-19 23:00 UTC)