Some interesting updates on current developments
Open Assistant is open source ChatGPT clone with crowdsourced fine-tuning
- https://open-assistant.io
Redpajama is project for reproducing LLaMA and releasing the model under
open source licence. Current status is that they have released the
>
> At this point I guess I would recommend adding five or so
> g2.cores8.ram36.disk20 flavor VPSs to WMCS, with between one and three
> RTX A6000 GPUs each, plus a 1TB SSD each, which should cost under
> $60k. That should allow for very widely multilingual models somewhere
> between GPT-3.5 and 4
On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 5:40 PM Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> I can't comment on the hardware requirements, but I would note that in
> addition to the llama.cpp repository
> (https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp), which currently focuses on
> LLaMA/Alpaca, there are other efforts to reduce the
>
>
>
> Are you infringing Stability AI's copyright by clicking this link? If
> not, are you infringing Stability AI's copyright by then writing a
> Python script that uses this file to generate images, if you only run
> it locally on your GPU?
>
> Even if a court answers either question with
On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 10:18 PM rupert THURNER wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 11:36 PM Erik Moeller wrote:
> >
> > ... I am confident (based on, e.g., the recent
> > results with Alpaca: https://crfm.stanford.edu/2023/03/13/alpaca.html)
> > that the performance of smaller models will continue
On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 11:36 PM Erik Moeller wrote:
> Openly licensed models for machine translation like Facebook's M2M
> (https://huggingface.co/facebook/m2m100_418M) or text generation like
> Cerebras-GPT-13B (https://huggingface.co/cerebras/Cerebras-GPT-13B)
> and GPT-NeoX-20B
Lauren:
> Erik, I see your point now and agree with you. But doesn't it seem
> like obtaining a perfect license is at present the enemy of the urgent
> good of bringing a concerted effort to bear on problems that are
> clearly detrimental to project integrity?
I don't think the licensing
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 3:05 PM Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:25 PM Lauren Worden
> wrote:
> > > If you don't obtain this agreement, you cannot meaningfully enforce
> > > the "license" because the downloader never agreed to it in the first
> > > place. Moreover, you'll have
Den lör 1 apr. 2023 kl 10:21 skrev Lauren Worden :
> How would you characterize the harm of hosting BLOOM until a
> comparable FOSS model is available?
There are a few risks that could be harmful, although I don't think they
are neither certain nor very direct.
But, if we do give up our
Erik, I see your point now and agree with you. But doesn't it seem
like obtaining a perfect license is at present the enemy of the urgent
good of bringing a concerted effort to bear on problems that are
clearly detrimental to project integrity?
I haven't been able to tell whether any of the
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 8:38 AM wrote:
> Downloading computer programs and electronic databases (and downloading for
> purposes outside
> the listed exception) requires an express consent of the copyright holder,
> i.e. a license.
> In other words, you _cannot_ download a GPL program without
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:28 PM Erik Moeller wrote:
> One core principle in open source licenses is that you are not
> required to agree to the license in order to download or run copies.
> The GPL makes this explicit: "You are not required to accept this
> License in order to receive or
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:25 PM Lauren Worden wrote:
> > If you don't obtain this agreement, you cannot meaningfully enforce
> > the "license" because the downloader never agreed to it in the first
> > place. Moreover, you'll have to make sure that _everyone else making
> > copies of the file_
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 4:28 AM Erik Moeller wrote:
> If you want to impose _additional restrictions_ on a person for stuff
> they download from you, that actually requires proactive agreement
> from the user to those restrictions at the time they download the
> thing.
>
> If you don't obtain
Den tors 30 mars 2023 kl 02:33 skrev Lauren Worden :
>
> Is the BLOOM RAIL license [
> https://huggingface.co/spaces/bigscience/license ] proprietary?
>
Yes. The common definition is that if it is not open source, it is
proprietary. But you don't need to take my word for it.
> So I expect the
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 1:49 PM Jan Ainali wrote:
> On the contrary, I think it is important to, as early as possible, deter all
> these attempts
> to weaken the concept of "open" and that we as a movement need to take a hard
> stance
> against them.
I agree with Jan on this. Licenses are the
Hi,
>> My understanding is that is not proprietary, and the only reason it
doesn't qualify for Open Source Initiative approval is because of these use
restrictions:
>
> To generate or disseminate information or content, in any context (e.g.
posts, articles, tweets, chatbots or other kinds of
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 1:50 PM Jan Ainali wrote:
>
> I think it is important to, as early as possible, deter all these attempts to
> weaken the concept of "open" and that we as a movement need to take a hard
> stance against them.
> These proprietary licenses do not fit the spirit of sharing
Hi Alek, nice to see you here!
On the contrary, I think it is important to, as early as possible, deter
all these attempts to weaken the concept of "open" and that we as a
movement need to take a hard stance against them.
These proprietary licenses do not fit the spirit of sharing all knowledge
Hi,
(I’m Alek from Open Future Foundation, I largely lurk here, so I want to say
“Hi everyone!” first).
Jan, you’re right that the RAIL license does not meet any FOSS definitions. But
its authors, in their white paper, position this license not just as
“responsible” but also “open”. And
Den tis 28 mars 2023 kl 12:08 skrev Lauren Worden :
> First, the Foundation should host a fork of BLOOM [
> https://huggingface.co/bigscience/bloom ], which if I remember correctly
> was described by the Foundation's Machine Learning Director Chris Albon as
> the only LLM at the scale of GPT-3
Since proposals which don't fit in to existing discussions elsewhere are on
topic here, I want to boldly recommend the following while the annual
planning process is still ongoing, because it's far beyond the scope of
what could be accomplished at a hackathon or on WMCS in a responsible
fashion:
Hello again everyone,
Thanks again to those who made it to the call last week - it felt like such
a luxury to be able to drop deeply into this subject for an hour (plus)
with all of you.
For those who were unable to join, we captured extensive notes on Meta
Yes, please, make this a regular event, at least for the time being.
These discussions are incredibly useful, given the speed the developments
are happening in this area, and the complexity of the challenges we are
facing due to them.
And thank's a lot for organizing the meeting yesterday!
Paulo
The Bau lab (that produced ROME) is great; see their update MEMIT
https://memit.baulab.info scaling that approach.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 3:43 PM Lauren Worden
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 12:20 PM Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> Thanks Yael and all for hosting this! A great conversation which
Thank you, all, for such a great conversation! I'd love to make this
something we do regularly, and wonder if there would be appetite for
rotating hosts? I softly nominate the Basque community to host the
next one!
One way or another, we'll find a way to make this more regular and will
come back
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 12:20 PM Samuel Klein wrote:
> Thanks Yael and all for hosting this! A great conversation which we
> should revisit regularly.
>
Yes, I hope that this can be a (monthly?) regularly occurring event given
the current state of very substantial advancements and improvements
Thanks Yael and all for hosting this! A great conversation which we should
revisit regularly.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 4:40 PM Yael Weissburg
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Last year, as part of our annual planning process, the Wikimedia
> Foundation shared a list of external trends
>
Hi everyone!
Reminder that this conversation is coming up on Thursday! We will have a
member of the Foundation's Legal team with us to discuss possible legal
implications, many of which have been raised on this list over the past few
days. You can still register for the Zoom room by emailing
29 matches
Mail list logo
