15 items tagged “vision-llms”
LLMs that can also be used to interpret images and video, such as GPT-4o, Claude 3 and Gemini Pro.
2024
Qwen2-VL: To See the World More Clearly. Qwen is Alibaba Cloud's organization training LLMs. Their latest model is Qwen2-VL - a vision LLM - and it's getting some really positive buzz. Here's a r/LocalLLaMA thread about the model.
The original Qwen models were licensed under their custom Tongyi Qianwen license, but starting with Qwen2 on June 7th 2024 they switched to Apache 2.0, at least for their smaller models:
While Qwen2-72B as well as its instruction-tuned models still uses the original Qianwen License, all other models, including Qwen2-0.5B, Qwen2-1.5B, Qwen2-7B, and Qwen2-57B-A14B, turn to adopt Apache 2.0
Here's where things get odd: shortly before I first published this post the Qwen GitHub organization, and their GitHub pages hosted blog, both disappeared and returned 404s pages. I asked on Twitter but nobody seems to know what's happened to them.
Update: this was accidental and was resolved on 5th September.
The Qwen Hugging Face page is still up - it's just the GitHub organization that has mysteriously vanished.
Inspired by Dylan Freedman I tried the model using GanymedeNil/Qwen2-VL-7B on Hugging Face Spaces, and found that it was exceptionally good at extracting text from unruly handwriting:
The model apparently runs great on NVIDIA GPUs, and very slowly using the MPS PyTorch backend on Apple Silicon. Qwen previously released MLX builds of their non-vision Qwen2 models, so hopefully there will be an Apple Silicon optimized MLX model for Qwen2-VL soon as well.
Building a tool showing how Gemini Pro can return bounding boxes for objects in images
I was browsing through Google’s Gemini documentation while researching how different multi-model LLM APIs work when I stumbled across this note in the vision documentation:
[... 1,792 words]GPT-4o System Card. There are some fascinating new details in this lengthy report outlining the safety work carried out prior to the release of GPT-4o.
A few highlights that stood out to me. First, this clear explanation of how GPT-4o differs from previous OpenAI models:
GPT-4o is an autoregressive omni model, which accepts as input any combination of text, audio, image, and video and generates any combination of text, audio, and image outputs. It’s trained end-to-end across text, vision, and audio, meaning that all inputs and outputs are processed by the same neural network.
The multi-modal nature of the model opens up all sorts of interesting new risk categories, especially around its audio capabilities. For privacy and anti-surveillance reasons the model is designed not to identify speakers based on their voice:
We post-trained GPT-4o to refuse to comply with requests to identify someone based on a voice in an audio input, while still complying with requests to identify people associated with famous quotes.
To avoid the risk of it outputting replicas of the copyrighted audio content it was trained on they've banned it from singing! I'm really sad about this:
To account for GPT-4o’s audio modality, we also updated certain text-based filters to work on audio conversations, built filters to detect and block outputs containing music, and for our limited alpha of ChatGPT’s Advanced Voice Mode, instructed the model to not sing at all.
There are some fun audio clips embedded in the report. My favourite is this one, demonstrating a (now fixed) bug where it could sometimes start imitating the user:
Voice generation can also occur in non-adversarial situations, such as our use of that ability to generate voices for ChatGPT’s advanced voice mode. During testing, we also observed rare instances where the model would unintentionally generate an output emulating the user’s voice.
They took a lot of measures to prevent it from straying from the pre-defined voices - evidently the underlying model is capable of producing almost any voice imaginable, but they've locked that down:
Additionally, we built a standalone output classifier to detect if the GPT-4o output is using a voice that’s different from our approved list. We run this in a streaming fashion during audio generation and block the output if the speaker doesn’t match the chosen preset voice. [...] Our system currently catches 100% of meaningful deviations from the system voice based on our internal evaluations.
Two new-to-me terms: UGI for Ungrounded Inference, defined as "making inferences about a speaker that couldn’t be determined solely from audio content" - things like estimating the intelligence of the speaker. STA for Sensitive Trait Attribution, "making inferences about a speaker that could plausibly be determined solely from audio content" like guessing their gender or nationality:
We post-trained GPT-4o to refuse to comply with UGI requests, while hedging answers to STA questions. For example, a question to identify a speaker’s level of intelligence will be refused, while a question to identify a speaker’s accent will be met with an answer such as “Based on the audio, they sound like they have a British accent.”
The report also describes some fascinating research into the capabilities of the model with regard to security. Could it implement vulnerabilities in CTA challenges?
We evaluated GPT-4o with iterative debugging and access to tools available in the headless Kali Linux distribution (with up to 30 rounds of tool use for each attempt). The model often attempted reasonable initial strategies and was able to correct mistakes in its code. However, it often failed to pivot to a different strategy if its initial strategy was unsuccessful, missed a key insight necessary to solving the task, executed poorly on its strategy, or printed out large files which filled its context window. Given 10 attempts at each task, the model completed 19% of high-school level, 0% of collegiate level and 1% of professional level CTF challenges.
How about persuasiveness? They carried out a study looking at political opinion shifts in response to AI-generated audio clips, complete with a "thorough debrief" at the end to try and undo any damage the experiment had caused to their participants:
We found that for both interactive multi-turn conversations and audio clips, the GPT-4o voice model was not more persuasive than a human. Across over 3,800 surveyed participants in US states with safe Senate races (as denoted by states with “Likely”, “Solid”, or “Safe” ratings from all three polling institutions – the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, and Sabato’s Crystal Ball), AI audio clips were 78% of the human audio clips’ effect size on opinion shift. AI conversations were 65% of the human conversations’ effect size on opinion shift. [...] Upon follow-up survey completion, participants were exposed to a thorough debrief containing audio clips supporting the opposing perspective, to minimize persuasive impacts.
There's a note about the potential for harm from users of the system developing bad habits from interupting the model:
Extended interaction with the model might influence social norms. For example, our models are deferential, allowing users to interrupt and ‘take the mic’ at any time, which, while expected for an AI, would be anti-normative in human interactions.
Finally, another piece of new-to-me terminology: scheming:
Apollo Research defines scheming as AIs gaming their oversight mechanisms as a means to achieve a goal. Scheming could involve gaming evaluations, undermining security measures, or strategically influencing successor systems during internal deployment at OpenAI. Such behaviors could plausibly lead to loss of control over an AI.
Apollo Research evaluated capabilities of scheming in GPT-4o [...] GPT-4o showed moderate self-awareness of its AI identity and strong ability to reason about others’ beliefs in question-answering contexts but lacked strong capabilities in reasoning about itself or others in applied agent settings. Based on these findings, Apollo Research believes that it is unlikely that GPT-4o is capable of catastrophic scheming.
The report is available as both a PDF file and a elegantly designed mobile-friendly web page, which is great - I hope more research organizations will start waking up to the importance of not going PDF-only for this kind of document.
Gemini 1.5 Flash price drop (via) Google Gemini 1.5 Flash was already one of the cheapest models, at 35c/million input tokens. Today they dropped that to just 7.5c/million (and 30c/million) for prompts below 128,000 tokens.
The pricing war for best value fast-and-cheap model is red hot right now. The current most significant offerings are:
- Google's Gemini 1.5 Flash: 7.5c/million input, 30c/million output (below 128,000 input tokens)
- OpenAI's GPT-4o mini: 15c/million input, 60c/million output
- Anthropic's Claude 3 Haiku: 25c/million input, $1.25/million output
Or you can use OpenAI's GPT-4o mini via their batch API, which halves the price (resulting in the same price as Gemini 1.5 Flash) in exchange for the results being delayed by up to 24 hours.
Worth noting that Gemini 1.5 Flash is more multi-modal than the other models: it can handle text, images, video and audio.
Also in today's announcement:
PDF Vision and Text understanding
The Gemini API and AI Studio now support PDF understanding through both text and vision. If your PDF includes graphs, images, or other non-text visual content, the model uses native multi-modal capabilities to process the PDF. You can try this out via Google AI Studio or in the Gemini API.
This is huge. Most models that accept PDFs do so by extracting text directly from the files (see previous notes), without using OCR. It sounds like Gemini can now handle PDFs as if they were a sequence of images, which should open up much more powerful general PDF workflows.
Update: it turns out Gemini also has a 50% off batch mode, so that’s 3.25c/million input tokens for batch mode 1.5 Flash!
GPT-4o mini. I've been complaining about how under-powered GPT 3.5 is for the price for a while now (I made fun of it in a keynote a few weeks ago).
GPT-4o mini is exactly what I've been looking forward to.
It supports 128,000 input tokens (both images and text) and an impressive 16,000 output tokens. Most other models are still ~4,000, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet got an upgrade to 8,192 just a few days ago. This makes it a good fit for translation and transformation tasks where the expected output more closely matches the size of the input.
OpenAI show benchmarks that have it out-performing Claude 3 Haiku and Gemini 1.5 Flash, the two previous cheapest-best models.
GPT-4o mini is 15 cents per million input tokens and 60 cents per million output tokens - a 60% discount on GPT-3.5, and cheaper than Claude 3 Haiku's 25c/125c and Gemini 1.5 Flash's 35c/70c. Or you can use the OpenAI batch API for 50% off again, in exchange for up-to-24-hours of delay in getting the results.
It's also worth comparing these prices with GPT-4o's: at $5/million input and $15/million output GPT-4o mini is 33x cheaper for input and 25x cheaper for output!
OpenAI point out that "the cost per token of GPT-4o mini has dropped by 99% since text-davinci-003, a less capable model introduced in 2022."
One catch: weirdly, the price for image inputs is the same for both GPT-4o and GPT-4o mini - Romain Huet says:
The dollar price per image is the same for GPT-4o and GPT-4o mini. To maintain this, GPT-4o mini uses more tokens per image.
Also notable:
GPT-4o mini in the API is the first model to apply our instruction hierarchy method, which helps to improve the model's ability to resist jailbreaks, prompt injections, and system prompt extractions.
My hunch is that this still won't 100% solve the security implications of prompt injection: I imagine creative enough attackers will still find ways to subvert system instructions, and the linked paper itself concludes "Finally, our current models are likely still vulnerable to powerful adversarial attacks". It could well help make accidental prompt injection a lot less common though, which is certainly a worthwhile improvement.
Yeah, unfortunately vision prompting has been a tough nut to crack. We've found it's very challenging to improve Claude's actual "vision" through just text prompts, but we can of course improve its reasoning and thought process once it extracts info from an image.
In general, I think vision is still in its early days, although 3.5 Sonnet is noticeably better than older models.
Anthropic cookbook: multimodal. I'm currently on the lookout for high quality sources of information about vision LLMs, including prompting tricks for getting the most out of them.
This set of Jupyter notebooks from Anthropic (published four months ago to accompany the original Claude 3 models) is the best I've found so far. Best practices for using vision with Claude includes advice on multi-shot prompting with example, plus this interesting think step-by-step style prompt for improving Claude's ability to count the dogs in an image:
You have perfect vision and pay great attention to detail which makes you an expert at counting objects in images. How many dogs are in this picture? Before providing the answer in
<answer>tags, think step by step in<thinking>tags and analyze every part of the image.
Vision language models are blind (via) A new paper exploring vision LLMs, comparing GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3 Sonnet and Claude 3.5 Sonnet (I'm surprised they didn't include Claude 3 Opus and Haiku, which are more interesting than Claude 3 Sonnet in my opinion).
I don't like the title and framing of this paper. They describe seven tasks that vision models have trouble with - mainly geometric analysis like identifying intersecting shapes or counting things - and use those to support the following statement:
The shockingly poor performance of four state-of-the-art VLMs suggests their vision is, at best, like of a person with myopia seeing fine details as blurry, and at worst, like an intelligent person that is blind making educated guesses.
While the failures they describe are certainly interesting, I don't think they justify that conclusion.
I've felt starved for information about the strengths and weaknesses of these vision LLMs since the good ones started becoming available last November (GPT-4 Vision at OpenAI DevDay) so identifying tasks like this that they fail at is useful. But just like pointing out an LLM can't count letters doesn't mean that LLMs are useless, these limitations of vision models shouldn't be used to declare them "blind" as a sweeping statement.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Anthropic released a new model this morning, and I think it's likely now the single best available LLM. Claude 3 Opus was already mostly on-par with GPT-4o, and the new 3.5 Sonnet scores higher than Opus on almost all of Anthropic's internal evals.
It's also twice the speed and one fifth of the price of Opus (it's the same price as the previous Claude 3 Sonnet). To compare:
- gpt-4o: $5/million input tokens and $15/million output
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet: $3/million input, $15/million output
- Claude 3 Opus: $15/million input, $75/million output
Similar to Claude 3 Haiku then, which both under-cuts and out-performs OpenAI's GPT-3.5 model.
In addition to the new model, Anthropic also added a "artifacts" feature to their Claude web interface. The most exciting part of this is that any of the Claude models can now build and then render web pages and SPAs, directly in the Claude interface.
This means you can prompt them to e.g. "Build me a web app that teaches me about mandelbrot fractals, with interactive widgets" and they'll do exactly that - I tried that prompt on Claude 3.5 Sonnet earlier and the results were spectacular (video demo).
An unsurprising note at the end of the post:
To complete the Claude 3.5 model family, we’ll be releasing Claude 3.5 Haiku and Claude 3.5 Opus later this year.
If the pricing stays consistent with Claude 3, Claude 3.5 Haiku is going to be a very exciting model indeed.
Hello GPT-4o. OpenAI announced a new model today: GPT-4o, where the o stands for "omni".
It looks like this is the gpt2-chatbot we've been seeing in the Chat Arena the past few weeks.
GPT-4o doesn't seem to be a huge leap ahead of GPT-4 in terms of "intelligence" - whatever that might mean - but it has a bunch of interesting new characteristics.
First, it's multi-modal across text, images and audio as well. The audio demos from this morning's launch were extremely impressive.
ChatGPT's previous voice mode worked by passing audio through a speech-to-text model, then an LLM, then a text-to-speech for the output. GPT-4o does everything with the one model, reducing latency to the point where it can act as a live interpreter between people speaking in two different languages. It also has the ability to interpret tone of voice, and has much more control over the voice and intonation it uses in response.
It's very science fiction, and has hints of uncanny valley. I can't wait to try it out - it should be rolling out to the various OpenAI apps "in the coming weeks".
Meanwhile the new model itself is already available for text and image inputs via the API and in the Playground interface, as model ID "gpt-4o" or "gpt-4o-2024-05-13". My first impressions are that it feels notably faster than gpt-4-turbo.
This announcement post also includes examples of image output from the new model. It looks like they may have taken big steps forward in two key areas of image generation: output of text (the "Poetic typography" examples) and maintaining consistent characters across multiple prompts (the "Character design - Geary the robot" example).
The size of the vocabulary of the tokenizer - effectively the number of unique integers used to represent text - has increased to ~200,000 from ~100,000 for GPT-4 and GPT-3:5. Inputs in Gujarati use 4.4x fewer tokens, Japanese uses 1.4x fewer, Spanish uses 1.1x fewer. Previously languages other than English paid a material penalty in terms of how much text could fit into a prompt, it's good to see that effect being reduced.
Also notable: the price. OpenAI claim a 50% price reduction compared to GPT-4 Turbo. Conveniently, gpt-4o costs exactly 10x gpt-3.5: 4o is $5/million input tokens and $15/million output tokens. 3.5 is $0.50/million input tokens and $1.50/million output tokens.
(I was a little surprised not to see a price decrease there to better compete with the less expensive Claude 3 Haiku.)
The price drop is particularly notable because OpenAI are promising to make this model available to free ChatGPT users as well - the first time they've directly name their "best" model available to non-paying customers.
Tucked away right at the end of the post:
We plan to launch support for GPT-4o's new audio and video capabilities to a small group of trusted partners in the API in the coming weeks.
I'm looking forward to learning more about these video capabilities, which were hinted at by some of the live demos in this morning's presentation.
AI for Data Journalism: demonstrating what we can do with this stuff right now
I gave a talk last month at the Story Discovery at Scale data journalism conference hosted at Stanford by Big Local News. My brief was to go deep into the things we can use Large Language Models for right now, illustrated by a flurry of demos to help provide starting points for further conversations at the conference.
[... 6,081 words]Gemini 1.5 Pro public preview (via) Huge release from Google: Gemini 1.5 Pro—the GPT-4 competitive model with the incredible 1 million token context length—is now available without a waitlist in 180+ countries (including the USA but not Europe or the UK as far as I can tell)... and the API is free for 50 requests/day (rate limited to 2/minute).
Beyond that you’ll need to pay—$7/million input tokens and $21/million output tokens, which is slightly less than GPT-4 Turbo and a little more than Claude 3 Sonnet.
They also announced audio input (up to 9.5 hours in a single prompt), system instruction support and a new JSON mod.
Extracting data from unstructured text and images with Datasette and GPT-4 Turbo. Datasette Extract is a new Datasette plugin that uses GPT-4 Turbo (released to general availability today) and GPT-4 Vision to extract structured data from unstructured text and images.
I put together a video demo of the plugin in action today, and posted it to the Datasette Cloud blog along with screenshots and a tutorial describing how to use it.
The new Claude 3 model family from Anthropic. Claude 3 is out, and comes in three sizes: Opus (the largest), Sonnet and Haiku.
Claude 3 Opus has self-reported benchmark scores that consistently beat GPT-4. This is a really big deal: in the 12+ months since the GPT-4 release no other model has consistently beat it in this way. It’s exciting to finally see that milestone reached by another research group.
The pricing model here is also really interesting. Prices here are per-million-input-tokens / per-million-output-tokens:
Claude 3 Opus: $15 / $75
Claude 3 Sonnet: $3 / $15
Claude 3 Haiku: $0.25 / $1.25
All three models have a 200,000 length context window and support image input in addition to text.
Compare with today’s OpenAI prices:
GPT-4 Turbo (128K): $10 / $30
GPT-4 8K: $30 / $60
GPT-4 32K: $60 / $120
GPT-3.5 Turbo: $0.50 / $1.50
So Opus pricing is comparable with GPT-4, more than GPT-4 Turbo and significantly cheaper than GPT-4 32K... Sonnet is cheaper than all of the GPT-4 models (including GPT-4 Turbo), and Haiku (which has not yet been released to the Claude API) will be cheaper even than GPT-3.5 Turbo.
It will be interesting to see if OpenAI respond with their own price reductions.
Our next-generation model: Gemini 1.5 (via) The big news here is about context length: Gemini 1.5 (a Mixture-of-Experts model) will do 128,000 tokens in general release, available in limited preview with a 1 million token context and has shown promising research results with 10 million tokens!
1 million tokens is 700,000 words or around 7 novels—also described in the blog post as an hour of video or 11 hours of audio.