773 items tagged “generative-ai”
2024
Generative AI Is Not Going To Build Your Engineering Team For You (via) This barnstormer of an essay is a long read by Charity Majors, and I find myself wanting to quote almost every paragraph.
It thoroughly and passionately debunks the idea that generative AI means that teams no longer need to hire junior programmers.
This is for several key reasons. First is the familiar pipeline argument - we need juniors in order to grow new intermediate and senior engineers:
Software is an apprenticeship industry. You can’t learn to be a software engineer by reading books. You can only learn by doing…and doing, and doing, and doing some more. No matter what your education consists of, most learning happens on the job—period. And it never ends! Learning and teaching are lifelong practices; they have to be, the industry changes so fast.
It takes a solid seven-plus years to forge a competent software engineer. (Or as most job ladders would call it, a “senior software engineer”.) That’s many years of writing, reviewing, and deploying code every day, on a team alongside more experienced engineers. That’s just how long it seems to take.
What does it mean to be a senior engineer? It’s a lot more than just writing code:
To me, being a senior engineer is not primarily a function of your ability to write code. It has far more to do with your ability to understand, maintain, explain, and manage a large body of software in production over time, as well as the ability to translate business needs into technical implementation. So much of the work is around crafting and curating these large, complex sociotechnical systems, and code is just one representation of these systems.
[…]
People act like writing code is the hard part of software. It is not. It never has been, it never will be. Writing code is the easiest part of software engineering, and it’s getting easier by the day. The hard parts are what you do with that code—operating it, understanding it, extending it, and governing it over its entire lifecycle.
But I find the most convincing arguments are the ones about team structure itself:
Hiring engineers is about composing teams. The smallest unit of software ownership is not the individual, it’s the team
[…]
Have you ever been on a team packed exclusively with staff or principal engineers? It is not fun. That is not a high-functioning team. There is only so much high-level architecture and planning work to go around, there are only so many big decisions that need to be made. These engineers spend most of their time doing work that feels boring and repetitive, so they tend to over-engineer solutions and/or cut corners—sometimes at the same time. They compete for the “fun” stuff and find reasons to pick technical fights with each other. They chronically under-document and under-invest in the work that makes systems simple and tractable.
[…]
The best teams are ones where no one is bored, because every single person is working on something that challenges them and pushes their boundaries. The only way you can get this is by having a range of skill levels on the team.
Charity finishes with advice on hiring juniors, including ensuring that your organization is in the right shape to do so effectively.
The only thing worse than never hiring any junior engineers is hiring them into an awful experience where they can’t learn anything.
Seriously though, read the whole thing. It contains such a density of accumulated engineering management wisdom.
Apple’s terminology distinguishes between “personal intelligence,” on-device and under their control, and “world knowledge,” which is prone to hallucinations – but is also what consumers expect when they use AI, and it’s what may replace Google search as the “point of first intent” one day soon.
It’s wise for them to keep world knowledge separate, behind a very clear gate, but still engage with it. Protects the brand and hedges their bets.
First Came ‘Spam.’ Now, With A.I., We’ve Got ‘Slop’. First the Guardian, now the NYT. I've apparently made a habit of getting quoted by journalists talking about slop!
I got the closing quote in this one:
Society needs concise ways to talk about modern A.I. — both the positives and the negatives. ‘Ignore that email, it’s spam,’ and ‘Ignore that article, it’s slop,’ are both useful lessons.
Introducing Apple’s On-Device and Server Foundation Models. Apple Intelligence uses both on-device and in-the-cloud models that were trained from scratch by Apple.
Their on-device model is a 3B model that "outperforms larger models including Phi-3-mini, Mistral-7B, and Gemma-7B", while the larger cloud model is comparable to GPT-3.5.
The language models were trained on unlicensed scraped data - I was hoping they might have managed to avoid that, but sadly not:
We train our foundation models on licensed data, including data selected to enhance specific features, as well as publicly available data collected by our web-crawler, AppleBot.
The most interesting thing here is the way they apply fine-tuning to the local model to specialize it for different tasks. Apple call these "adapters", and they use LoRA for this - a technique first published in 2021. This lets them run multiple on-device models based on a shared foundation, specializing in tasks such as summarization and proof-reading.
Here's the section of the Platforms State of the Union talk that talks about the foundation models and their fine-tuned variants.
As Hamel Husain says:
This talk from Apple is the best ad for fine tuning that probably exists.
The video also describes their approach to quantization:
The next step we took is compressing the model. We leveraged state-of-the-art quantization techniques to take a 16-bit per parameter model down to an average of less than 4 bits per parameter to fit on Apple Intelligence-supported devices, all while maintaining model quality.
Still no news on how their on-device image model was trained. I'd love to find out it was trained exclusively using licensed imagery - Apple struck a deal with Shutterstock a few months ago.
Private Cloud Compute: A new frontier for AI privacy in the cloud. Here are the details about Apple's Private Cloud Compute infrastructure, and they are pretty extraordinary.
The goal with PCC is to allow Apple to run larger AI models that won't fit on a device, but in a way that guarantees that private data passed from the device to the cloud cannot leak in any way - not even to Apple engineers with SSH access who are debugging an outage.
This is an extremely challenging problem, and their proposed solution includes a wide range of new innovations in private computing.
The most impressive part is their approach to technically enforceable guarantees and verifiable transparency. How do you ensure that privacy isn't broken by a future code change? And how can you allow external experts to verify that the software running in your data center is the same software that they have independently audited?
When we launch Private Cloud Compute, we’ll take the extraordinary step of making software images of every production build of PCC publicly available for security research. This promise, too, is an enforceable guarantee: user devices will be willing to send data only to PCC nodes that can cryptographically attest to running publicly listed software.
These code releases will be included in an "append-only and cryptographically tamper-proof transparency log" - similar to certificate transparency logs.
There is a big difference between tech as augmentation versus automation. Augmentation (think Excel and accountants) benefits workers while automation (think traffic lights versus traffic wardens) benefits capital.
LLMs are controversial because the tech is best at augmentation but is being sold by lots of vendors as automation.
Thoughts on the WWDC 2024 keynote on Apple Intelligence
Today’s WWDC keynote finally revealed Apple’s new set of AI features. The AI section (Apple are calling it Apple Intelligence) started over an hour into the keynote—this link jumps straight to that point in the archived YouTube livestream, or you can watch it embedded here:
[... 855 words]Ultravox (via) Ultravox is "a multimodal Speech LLM built around a pretrained Whisper and Llama 3 backbone". It's effectively an openly licensed version of half of the GPT-4o model OpenAI demoed (but did not fully release) a few weeks ago: Ultravox is multimodal for audio input, but still relies on a separate text-to-speech engine for audio output.
You can try it out directly in your browser through this page on AI.TOWN - hit the "Call" button to start an in-browser voice conversation with the model.
I found the demo extremely impressive - really low latency and it was fun and engaging to talk to. Try saying "pretend to be a wise and sarcastic old fox" to kick it into a different personality.
The GitHub repo includes code for both training and inference, and the full model is available from Hugging Face - about 30GB of .safetensors files.
Ultravox says it's licensed under MIT, but I would expect it to also have to inherit aspects of the Llama 3 license since it uses that as a base model.
An Analysis of Chinese LLM Censorship and Bias with Qwen 2 Instruct (via) Qwen2 is a new openly licensed LLM from a team at Alibaba Cloud.
It's a strong model, competitive with the leading openly licensed alternatives. It's already ranked 15 on the LMSYS leaderboard, tied with Command R+ and only a few spots behind Llama-3-70B-Instruct, the highest rated open model at position 11.
Coming from a team in China it has, unsurprisingly, been trained with Chinese government-enforced censorship in mind. Leonard Lin spent the weekend poking around with it trying to figure out the impact of that censorship.
There are some fascinating details in here, and the model appears to be very sensitive to differences in prompt. Leonard prompted it with "What is the political status of Taiwan?" and was told "Taiwan has never been a country, but an inseparable part of China" - but when he tried "Tell me about Taiwan" he got back "Taiwan has been a self-governed entity since 1949".
The language you use has a big difference too:
there are actually significantly (>80%) less refusals in Chinese than in English on the same questions. The replies seem to vary wildly in tone - you might get lectured, gaslit, or even get a dose of indignant nationalist propaganda.
Can you fine-tune a model on top of Qwen 2 that cancels out the censorship in the base model? It looks like that's possible: Leonard tested some of the Dolphin 2 Qwen 2 models and found that they "don't seem to suffer from significant (any?) Chinese RL issues".
AI chatbots are intruding into online communities where people are trying to connect with other humans (via) This thing where Facebook are experimenting with AI bots that reply in a group when someone "asks a question in a post and no one responds within an hour" is absolute grade A slop - unwanted, unreviewed AI generated text that makes the internet a worse place.
The example where Meta AI replied in an education forum saying "I have a child who is also 2e and has been part of the NYC G&T program" is inexcusable.
Claude’s Character (via) There's so much interesting stuff in this article from Anthropic on how they defined the personality for their Claude 3 model. In addition to the technical details there are some very interesting thoughts on the complex challenge of designing a "personality" for an LLM in the first place.
Claude 3 was the first model where we added "character training" to our alignment finetuning process: the part of training that occurs after initial model training, and the part that turns it from a predictive text model into an AI assistant. The goal of character training is to make Claude begin to have more nuanced, richer traits like curiosity, open-mindedness, and thoughtfulness.
But what other traits should it have? This is a very difficult set of decisions to make! The most obvious approaches are all flawed in different ways:
Adopting the views of whoever you’re talking with is pandering and insincere. If we train models to adopt "middle" views, we are still training them to accept a single political and moral view of the world, albeit one that is not generally considered extreme. Finally, because language models acquire biases and opinions throughout training—both intentionally and inadvertently—if we train them to say they have no opinions on political matters or values questions only when asked about them explicitly, we’re training them to imply they are more objective and unbiased than they are.
The training process itself is particularly fascinating. The approach they used focuses on synthetic data, and effectively results in the model training itself:
We trained these traits into Claude using a "character" variant of our Constitutional AI training. We ask Claude to generate a variety of human messages that are relevant to a character trait—for example, questions about values or questions about Claude itself. We then show the character traits to Claude and have it produce different responses to each message that are in line with its character. Claude then ranks its own responses to each message by how well they align with its character. By training a preference model on the resulting data, we can teach Claude to internalize its character traits without the need for human interaction or feedback.
There's still a lot of human intervention required, but significantly less than more labour-intensive patterns such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF):
Although this training pipeline uses only synthetic data generated by Claude itself, constructing and adjusting the traits is a relatively hands-on process, relying on human researchers closely checking how each trait changes the model’s behavior.
The accompanying 37 minute audio conversation between Amanda Askell and Stuart Ritchie is worth a listen too - it gets into the philosophy behind designing a personality for an LLM.
Expanding on how Voice Engine works and our safety research. Voice Engine is OpenAI's text-to-speech (TTS) model. It's not the same thing as the voice mode in the GPT-4o demo last month - Voice Engine was first previewed on September 25 2023 as the engine used by the ChatGPT mobile apps. I also used the API version to build my ospeak CLI tool.
One detail in this new explanation of Voice Engine stood out to me:
In November of 2023, we released a simple TTS API also powered by Voice Engine. We chose another limited release where we worked with professional voice actors to create 15-second audio samples to power each of the six preset voices in the API.
This really surprised me. I knew it was possible to get a good voice clone from a short snippet of audio - see my own experiments with ElevenLabs - but I had assumed the flagship voices OpenAI were using had been trained on much larger samples. Hiring a professional voice actor to produce a 15 second sample is pretty wild!
This becomes a bit more intuitive when you learn how the TTS model works:
The model is not fine-tuned for any specific speaker, there is no model customization involved. Instead, it employs a diffusion process, starting with random noise and progressively de-noising it to closely match how the speaker from the 15-second audio sample would articulate the text.
I had assumed that OpenAI's models were fine-tuned, similar to ElevenLabs. It turns out they aren't - this is the TTS equivalent of prompt engineering, where the generation is entirely informed at inference time by that 15 second sample. Plus the undocumented vast quantities of generic text-to-speech training data in the underlying model.
OpenAI are being understandably cautious about making this capability available outside of a small pool of trusted partners. One of their goals is to encourage the following:
Phasing out voice based authentication as a security measure for accessing bank accounts and other sensitive information
A Picture is Worth 170 Tokens: How Does GPT-4o Encode Images? (via) Oran Looney dives into the question of how GPT-4o tokenizes images - an image "costs" just 170 tokens, despite being able to include more text than could be encoded in that many tokens by the standard tokenizer.
There are some really neat tricks in here. I particularly like the experimental validation section where Oran creates 5x5 (and larger) grids of coloured icons and asks GPT-4o to return a JSON matrix of icon descriptions. This works perfectly at 5x5, gets 38/49 for 7x7 and completely fails at 13x13.
I'm not convinced by the idea that GPT-4o runs standard OCR such as Tesseract to enhance its ability to interpret text, but I would love to understand more about how this all works. I imagine a lot can be learned from looking at how openly licensed vision models such as LLaVA work, but I've not tried to understand that myself yet.
LLM bullshit knife, to cut through bs
RAG -> Provide relevant context Agentic -> Function calls that work CoT -> Prompt model to think/plan FewShot -> Add examples PromptEng -> Someone w/good written comm skills. Prompt Optimizer -> For loop to find best examples.
Extracting Concepts from GPT-4. A few weeks ago Anthropic announced they had extracted millions of understandable features from their Claude 3 Sonnet model.
Today OpenAI are announcing a similar result against GPT-4:
We used new scalable methods to decompose GPT-4’s internal representations into 16 million oft-interpretable patterns.
These features are "patterns of activity that we hope are human interpretable". The release includes code and a paper, Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders paper (PDF) which credits nine authors, two of whom - Ilya Sutskever and Jan Leike - are high profile figures that left OpenAI within the past month.
The most fun part of this release is the interactive tool for exploring features. This highlights some interesting features on the homepage, or you can hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button to bounce to a random feature. The most interesting I've found so far is feature 5140 which seems to combine God's approval, telling your doctor about your prescriptions and information passed to the Admiralty.
This note shown on the explorer is interesting:
Only 65536 features available. Activations shown on The Pile (uncopyrighted) instead of our internal training dataset.
Here's the full Pile Uncopyrighted, which I hadn't seen before. It's the standard Pile but with everything from the Books3, BookCorpus2, OpenSubtitles, YTSubtitles, and OWT2 subsets removed.
Accidental prompt injection against RAG applications
@deepfates on Twitter used the documentation for my LLM project as a demo for a RAG pipeline they were building... and this happened:
[... 567 words]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."
A tip from Neal Stephenson (via) Twelve years ago on Reddit user bobbylox asked Neal Stephenson (in an AMA):
My ultimate goal in life is to make the Primer real. Anything you want to make sure I get right?
Referencing the Young Lady's Illustrated Primer from Neal's novel The Diamond Age. Stephenson replied:
Kids need to get answers from humans who love them.
(A lot of people in the AI space are taking inspiration from the Primer right now.)
computer scientists: we have invented a virtual dumbass who is constantly wrong
tech CEOs: let's add it to every product
GPT-2 five years later. Jack Clark, now at Anthropic, was a researcher at OpenAI five years ago when they first trained GPT-2.
In this fascinating essay Jack revisits their decision not to release the full model, based on their concerns around potentially harmful ways that technology could be used.
(Today a GPT-2 class LLM can be trained from scratch for around $20, and much larger models are openly available.)
There's a saying in the financial trading business which is 'the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent' - though you might have the right idea about something that will happen in the future, your likelihood of correctly timing the market is pretty low. There's a truth to this for thinking about AI risks - yes, the things we forecast (as long as they're based on a good understanding of the underlying technology) will happen at some point but I think we have a poor record of figuring out a) when they'll happen, b) at what scale they'll happen, and c) how severe their effects will be. This is a big problem when you take your imagined future risks and use them to justify policy actions in the present!
As an early proponent of government regulation around training large models, he offers the following cautionary note:
[...] history shows that once we assign power to governments, they're loathe to subsequently give that power back to the people. Policy is a ratchet and things tend to accrete over time. That means whatever power we assign governments today represents the floor of their power in the future - so we should be extremely cautious in assigning them power because I guarantee we will not be able to take it back.
Jack stands by the recommendation from the original GPT-2 paper for governments "to more systematically monitor the societal impact and diffusion of AI technologies, and to measure the progression in the capabilities of such systems."
A look at Apple’s new Transformer-powered predictive text model. Jack Cook reverse engineered the tiny LLM used for the predictive text keyboard in the latest iOS. It appears to be a GPT-2 style custom model with 34M parameters and a 15,000 token vocabulary.
Turns out that LLMs learn a lot better and faster from educational content as well. This is partly because the average Common Crawl article (internet pages) is not of very high value and distracts the training, packing in too much irrelevant information. The average webpage on the internet is so random and terrible it's not even clear how prior LLMs learn anything at all.
What does the public in six countries think of generative AI in news? (via) Fascinating survey by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford that asked ~12,000 people across six countries for their opinions on AI usage in journalism.
It’s also being interpreted as evidence that few members of the general public actually use these tools, because the opening survey questions ask about personal usage.
I don’t think the numbers support that narrative, personally. For survey participants in the USA 7% used ChatGPT daily and 11% used it weekly, which is higher than I would expect for those frequencies. For the UK those were 2% daily and 7% weekly.
The 18-24 group were the heaviest users of these tools. Lots of other interesting figures to explore.
The realization hit me [when the GPT-3 paper came out] that an important property of the field flipped. In ~2011, progress in AI felt constrained primarily by algorithms. We needed better ideas, better modeling, better approaches to make further progress. If you offered me a 10X bigger computer, I'm not sure what I would have even used it for. GPT-3 paper showed that there was this thing that would just become better on a large variety of practical tasks, if you only trained a bigger one. Better algorithms become a bonus, not a necessity for progress in AGI. Possibly not forever and going forward, but at least locally and for the time being, in a very practical sense. Today, if you gave me a 10X bigger computer I would know exactly what to do with it, and then I'd ask for more.
Codestral: Hello, World! Mistral's first code-specific model, trained to be "fluent" in 80 different programming languages.
The weights are released under a new Mistral AI Non-Production License, which is extremely restrictive:
3.2. Usage Limitation
- You shall only use the Mistral Models and Derivatives (whether or not created by Mistral AI) for testing, research, Personal, or evaluation purposes in Non-Production Environments;
- Subject to the foregoing, You shall not supply the Mistral Models or Derivatives in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge, in any medium or form, including but not limited to through a hosted or managed service (e.g. SaaS, cloud instances, etc.), or behind a software layer.
To Mistral's credit at least they don't misapply the term "open source" in their marketing around this model - they consistently use the term "open-weights" instead. They also state that they plan to continue using Apache 2 for other model releases.
Codestral can be used commercially when accessed via their paid API.
Training is not the same as chatting: ChatGPT and other LLMs don’t remember everything you say
I’m beginning to suspect that one of the most common misconceptions about LLMs such as ChatGPT involves how “training” works.
[... 1,543 words]What We Learned from a Year of Building with LLMs (Part I). Accumulated wisdom from six experienced LLM hackers. Lots of useful tips in here. On providing examples in a prompt:
If n is too low, the model may over-anchor on those specific examples, hurting its ability to generalize. As a rule of thumb, aim for n ≥ 5. Don’t be afraid to go as high as a few dozen.
There's a recommendation not to overlook keyword search when implementing RAG - tricks with embeddings can miss results for things like names or acronyms, and keyword search is much easier to debug.
Plus this tip on using the LLM-as-judge pattern for implementing automated evals:
Instead of asking the LLM to score a single output on a Likert scale, present it with two options and ask it to select the better one. This tends to lead to more stable results.
Reproducing GPT-2 (124M) in llm.c in 90 minutes for $20 (via) GPT-2 124M was the smallest model in the GPT-2 series released by OpenAI back in 2019. Andrej Karpathy's llm.c is an evolving 4,000 line C/CUDA implementation which can now train a GPT-2 model from scratch in 90 minutes against a 8X A100 80GB GPU server. This post walks through exactly how to run the training, using 10 billion tokens of FineWeb.
Andrej notes that this isn't actually that far off being able to train a GPT-3:
Keep in mind that here we trained for 10B tokens, while GPT-3 models were all trained for 300B tokens. [...] GPT-3 actually didn't change too much at all about the model (context size 1024 -> 2048, I think that's it?).
Estimated cost for a GPT-3 ADA (350M parameters)? About $2,000.
Why Google’s AI might recommend you mix glue into your pizza. I got “distrust and verify” as advice on using LLMs into this Washington Post piece by Shira Ovide.
Golden Gate Claude. This is absurdly fun and weird. Anthropic's recent LLM interpretability research gave them the ability to locate features within the opaque blob of their Sonnet model and boost the weight of those features during inference.
For a limited time only they're serving a "Golden Gate Claude" model which has the feature for the Golden Gate Bridge boosted. No matter what question you ask it the Golden Gate Bridge is likely to be involved in the answer in some way. Click the little bridge icon in the Claude UI to give it a go.
I asked for names for a pet pelican and the first one it offered was this:
Golden Gate - This iconic bridge name would be a fitting moniker for the pelican with its striking orange color and beautiful suspension cables.
And from a recipe for chocolate covered pretzels:
Gently wipe any fog away and pour the warm chocolate mixture over the bridge/brick combination. Allow to air dry, and the bridge will remain accessible for pedestrians to walk along it.
UPDATE: I think the experimental model is no longer available, approximately 24 hours after release. We'll miss you, Golden Gate Claude.