Re: Collaborative training of Libre LLMs (was: Is ChatGTP SaaSS? (was: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: llm))
> > However, if the "patching" technology can only serve a single "patch" + > > main model, there is a problem. Improving libre neural networks will > > become difficult, unless people utilize collaborative server to > > continuously improve a model. > > > Such collaborative server, similar to ChatGPT, will combine "editing" > > (training) and "consulting" together. And, unlike Wikipedia, these > > activities are hard to separate. > > If the users in this "community" can't move their work outside of a > private "collaborative server", they are in effect prisoners of that > server. Whoever keeps them stuck there will have power, and that will > tempt per to mistreat them with it. > Versus traditional software, AI systems rely critically on the usage data generated to improve the original model. Using copyleft licensed models maybe enough to prevent a server owner from being able to train a better closed model? This would prevent them from holding users hostage on their server. > > This raises a moral question about practical ways to improve libre > > neural networks without falling into SaaSS practices. > > From the example above, I conclude it is crucial that people who use a > particular platform to modify and run the model have the feasible > freedom of copying their modified versions off that platform and onto > any other platform that satisfies the specs needed to run these models. > Platform portability does not solve for how to improve libre neural networks in an open, community guided way. To collaboratively develop better open models we'd need the generated usage data to be publically shareable. Attempts like open-assistant (https://open-assistant.io) that share usage data under cc-by-sa maybe a good enough solution for this. But it'll fall on the server owners to get explicit user consent and clean sensitive usage data to share this data publically without liability. -- Debanjum Singh Solanky Founder, Khoj (https://khoj.dev/)
Re: Collaborative training of Libre LLMs (was: Is ChatGTP SaaSS? (was: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: llm))
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > However, if the "patching" technology can only serve a single "patch" + > main model, there is a problem. Improving libre neural networks will > become difficult, unless people utilize collaborative server to > continuously improve a model. > Such collaborative server, similar to ChatGPT, will combine "editing" > (training) and "consulting" together. And, unlike Wikipedia, these > activities are hard to separate. If the users in this "community" can't move their work outside of a private "collaborative server", they are in effect prisoners of that server. Whoever keeps them stuck there will have power, and that will tempt per to mistreat them with it. > This raises a moral question about practical ways to improve libre > neural networks without falling into SaaSS practices. >From the example above, I conclude it is crucial that people who use a particular platform to modify and run the model have the feasible freedom of copying their modified versions off that platform and onto any other platform that satisfies the specs needed to run these models. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Re: Collaborative training of Libre LLMs (was: Is ChatGTP SaaSS? (was: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: llm))
* Ihor Radchenko [2023-09-09 13:28]: > > By contrast, ChatGTP is neither a community project nor free/libre. > > That's perhaps why it arranges to manipulate people into "contributing" > > rather than letting them choose. > > Indeed, they do hold coercive power as people have no choice to copy run > the model independently. There is free software for that type of artificial intelligence. People do have choice. Llama, Llama 2, Alpaca, GPT4All, Dolly, Vicuna, etc. I think that "they do hold coercive power" is out of reality. To find out if they have coercive power you should find the victim of coercion and be able to tell name victim. The verb coerce has 1 sense (first 1 from tagged texts)p 1. (2) coerce, hale, squeeze, pressure, force -- (to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means :"She forced him to take a job in the city"; "He squeezed her for information") Otherwise it sounds as propaganda. There are too many services online, nobody need to use them, I see there no coercion. > However, I do not care much about OpenAI corporate practices - they are > as bad as we are used to in other bigtech SaaSS companies. What might be > a more interesting question to discuss is actual genuine collaborative > effort training a libre (not ChatGTP) model. Their closed software example is followed by free software. I see that as positive not "as bad as we are ued to in other bigtech..." I do not see anything bad here, I see that company offers service and customers can freely decide to take service, or not. Keeping farms of servers for that purpose is very expensive. There must be some exchange between customers and company. Even Wikipedia, and GNU and free software projects needs funds to continue. -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/
