12 items tagged “benj-edwards”
2024
Debate over “open source AI” term brings new push to formalize definition. Benj Edwards reports on the latest draft (v0.0.9) of a definition for "Open Source AI" from the Open Source Initiative.
It's been under active development for around a year now, and I think the definition is looking pretty solid. It starts by emphasizing the key values that make an AI system "open source":
An Open Source AI is an AI system made available under terms and in a way that grant the freedoms to:
- Use the system for any purpose and without having to ask for permission.
- Study how the system works and inspect its components.
- Modify the system for any purpose, including to change its output.
- Share the system for others to use with or without modifications, for any purpose.
These freedoms apply both to a fully functional system and to discrete elements of a system. A precondition to exercising these freedoms is to have access to the preferred form to make modifications to the system.
There is one very notable absence from the definition: while it requires the code and weights be released under an OSI-approved license, the training data itself is exempt from that requirement.
At first impression this is disappointing, but I think it it's a pragmatic decision. We still haven't seen a model trained entirely on openly licensed data that's anywhere near the same class as the current batch of open weight models, all of which incorporate crawled web data or other proprietary sources.
For the OSI definition to be relevant, it needs to acknowledge this unfortunate reality of how these models are trained. Without that, we risk having a definition of "Open Source AI" that none of the currently popular models can use!
Instead of requiring the training information, the definition calls for "data information" described like this:
Data information: Sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data. Data information shall be made available with licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition.
The OSI's FAQ that accompanies the draft further expands on their reasoning:
Training data is valuable to study AI systems: to understand the biases that have been learned and that can impact system behavior. But training data is not part of the preferred form for making modifications to an existing AI system. The insights and correlations in that data have already been learned.
Data can be hard to share. Laws that permit training on data often limit the resharing of that same data to protect copyright or other interests. Privacy rules also give a person the rightful ability to control their most sensitive information – like decisions about their health. Similarly, much of the world’s Indigenous knowledge is protected through mechanisms that are not compatible with later-developed frameworks for rights exclusivity and sharing.
As we've noted many times since March, these benchmarks aren't necessarily scientifically sound and don't convey the subjective experience of interacting with AI language models. [...] We've instead found that measuring the subjective experience of using a conversational AI model (through what might be called "vibemarking") on A/B leaderboards like Chatbot Arena is a better way to judge new LLMs.
So much of knowledge/intelligence involves translating ideas between fields (domains). Those domains are walls the keep ideas siloed. But LLMs can help break those walls down and encourage humans to do more interdisciplinary thinking, which may lead to faster discoveries.
And note that I am implying that humans will make the breakthroughs, using LLMs as translation tools when appropriate, to help make connections. LLMs are strongest as translators of information that you provide. BYOD: Bring your own data!
Zoom CEO envisions AI deepfakes attending meetings in your place. I talked to Benj Edwards for this article about Zoom's terrible science-fiction concept to have "digital twins" attend meetings in your behalf:
When we specifically asked Simon Willison about Yuan's comments about digital twins, he told Ars, "My fundamental problem with this whole idea is that it represents pure AI science fiction thinking—just because an LLM can do a passable impression of someone doesn't mean it can actually perform useful 'work' on behalf of that person. LLMs are useful tools for thought. They are terrible tools for delegating decision making to. That's currently my red line for using them: any time someone outsources actual decision making authority to an opaque random number generator is a recipe for disaster."
“The king is dead”—Claude 3 surpasses GPT-4 on Chatbot Arena for the first time. I’m quoted in this piece by Benj Edwards for Ars Technica:
“For the first time, the best available models—Opus for advanced tasks, Haiku for cost and efficiency—are from a vendor that isn’t OpenAI. That’s reassuring—we all benefit from a diversity of top vendors in this space. But GPT-4 is over a year old at this point, and it took that year for anyone else to catch up.”
2023
ChatGPT is one year old. Here’s how it changed the world. I’m quoted in this piece by Benj Edwards about ChatGPT’s one year birthday:
“Imagine if every human being could automate the tedious, repetitive information tasks in their lives, without needing to first get a computer science degree,” AI researcher Simon Willison told Ars in an interview about ChatGPT’s impact. “I’m seeing glimpses that LLMs might help make a huge step in that direction.”
Details emerge of surprise board coup that ousted CEO Sam Altman at OpenAI. The board of the non-profit in control of OpenAI fired CEO Sam Altman yesterday, which is sending seismic waves around the AI technology industry. This overview by Benj Edwards is the best condensed summary I’ve seen yet of everything that’s known so far.
An Iowa school district is using ChatGPT to decide which books to ban. I’m quoted in this piece by Benj Edwards about an Iowa school district that responded to a law requiring books be removed from school libraries that include “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act” by asking ChatGPT “Does [book] contain a description or depiction of a sex act?”.
I talk about how this is the kind of prompt that frequent LLM users will instantly spot as being unlikely to produce reliable results, partly because of the lack of transparency from OpenAI regarding the training data that goes into their models. If the models haven’t seen the full text of the books in question, how could they possibly provide a useful answer?
Study claims ChatGPT is losing capability, but some experts aren’t convinced. Benj Edwards talks about the ongoing debate as to whether or not GPT-4 is getting weaker over time. I remain skeptical of those claims—I think it’s more likely that people are seeing more of the flaws now that the novelty has worn off.
I’m quoted in this piece: “Honestly, the lack of release notes and transparency may be the biggest story here. How are we meant to build dependable software on top of a platform that changes in completely undocumented and mysterious ways every few months?”
For example, if you prompt GPT-3 with "Mary had a," it usually completes the sentence with "little lamb." That's because there are probably thousands of examples of "Mary had a little lamb" in GPT-3's training data set, making it a sensible completion. But if you add more context in the prompt, such as "In the hospital, Mary had a," the result will change and return words like "baby" or "series of tests."
Why ChatGPT and Bing Chat are so good at making things up. I helped review this deep dive by Benj Edwards for Ars Technica into the hallucination/confabulation problem with ChatGPT and other LLMs, which is attracting increasing attention thanks to stories like the recent defamation complaints against ChatGPT. This article explains why this is happening and talks to various experts about potential solutions.
It is deeply unethical to give a superhuman liar the authority of a $1 trillion company or to imply that it is an accurate source of knowledge
And it is deeply manipulative to give people the impression that Bing Chat has emotions or feelings like a human