Hacker News Reader

Comment by laserbeam | Hacker News Reader

The naming is confusing and evil.

1. This is not based on GPT4. If you're going to include the words "GPT4" in your name and not base it on GPT4, what else can I not trust you about?

2. There's no direct link to the actual model used, just a reference to GPT-J.

3. I searched for GPT-J, huggingface docs describes it as a GPT-2-like model, the repo for it was started in august 2021, and hasn't really had significant updates in a long while.

Honestly, I don't want to spend time figuring out if this is worth it, trust is already out the window.

View on HN

This is what we in the Bitcoin ecosystem call an "Affinity Scam". Make it sound like something it isn't to capitalize on the hype.

It's honestly quite sad :(

What is quite sad is that OpenAI has strayed from being open and for everyone like its original founding principles suggested. When GPT-4 came out they released hardly any technical information. This project was a response to that and suggests, rightfully, what OpenAI should be doing: creating this foundational technology and making advances that help everyone. Make it for all.

Sure, but that's a completely separate issue.

I realize this is a controversial opinion here at times, but, two wrongs do not make a right.

Unless it's piracy.

There is no wrong here though. The frontpage clearly states this is not chatgpt. No one is misleading anyone.

…except the name of the site.

Who do you think you’re kidding with this rationalization? It doesn’t matter whether your goal is to mislead people, it’s still deception to call something gpt4 when it absolutely isn’t. And your poor responses to this criticism speaks volumes about your character.

It isn't GPT4 and we don't call it that. And we clearly state that on our front page in first few lines. GPT is a term of art. OpenAI does not own it. You can think all you want about my character but I'm sleeping well. There is no effort to be deceptive and I've clearly explained what the name is about and why it was chosen.

Intentions are good here , but the name is highly similar and so if you want to promote the project it seems fitting to rename for the sake of gaining more trust from new users. It is annoying though that the open-source well-intentioned project has to make the change tho.

> This is what we in the Bitcoin ecosystem call an "Affinity Scam". Make it sound like something it isn't to capitalize on the hype.

At least we know there they've painted themselves into a corner because when GPT 5 comes out, it wouldn't make sense to call the project GPT5All.

Nor would we want to. 4all is what we're trying to do.

I think you've got a branding issue which many here have pointed out. Perception is reality, as they say. If you're going to take a dig at OpenAI for "having lost their ways", it might pay to come up with alternative naming that doesn't cause a distraction (noise in this thread and the attempt to explain it) because it can't be fun to feel the need to defend your choice, especially when you're unlikely to convince people who cannot unsee wordplay on GPT4. I checked out OpenGPT, but unfortunately that's already taken.

Another thing that could help make clear is to not mimic the UI style of ChatGPT.

No worries. People can get mad if they want, but I'm sleeping well. People have plenty of criticism on the internet; i'm rolling with it. Fact is thousands are using it and happy to have it so we've been delighting lots of people. Cheers.

It's made by the same people here https://github.com/nomic-ai/gpt4all who initially distributed a LLaMA based model finetuned for conversations over torrent. I think you're overly critical. GPT4All naming is fine in my opinion, it's literally "GPT for all", but I can see why people would dislike it.

GPT4All is obviously capitalizing on the hype of GPT4, it's very unlikely to just be a coincident that it's has GPT4 in the name while GPT4 is receiving a lot of attention. They could have named it GPTForAll, but chose a 4 instead of "for" for obvious reasons.

It is not capitalizing so much as responding in a suggestive way. This project was started as a response to GPT-4, it is true. When OpenAI came out with version 4 and then refused to release any technical information whatsoever that was a wake up call for the founder. He correctly saw openai straying from its original goal to serve humanity by making a landing strip for safe AGI. The name was suggestive of what OpenAI has forgotten... that this foundational technology should be open to everyone. 4all. That is why we've released everything we've done under Apache 2.0 or MIT licenses. We're not being cynical.

I don't disagree with any of that, but if a project is started in response to something, and then you use their very name for a thing they launched, while not having anything to do with that thing, then that's a bit misleading for the users.

For example, if I don't like what Microsoft is doing with Windows and I name my own OS WindowsPro while it being a Linux distribution, I'm clearly trying to mislead people into believing it's something it's not.

The front page was changed to state this is not affiliated with other popular internet based gpt's in first few sentences. I get why people are cynical but the project really is trying to do the right thing.

As long as the project is actively trying to mislead people with a incorrect project name, I don't see it as them doing the right thing.

OpenAI mislead people. Where do you draw the line?

OpenAI is on the wrong side of that line. That doesn't mean this project has to also do that.

People affiliated with openai have privately stated they are appreciative of this project.

Yes, OpenAI's name is also misleading. When they moved from doing Open Source, Open research and being non-profit, they should have changed the name as it's no longer accurate.

But we aren't actively trying that is why the frontpage was updated to respond to exactly this criticism. There is no active deception going on here. You don't like the name, that's fine, but it clearly states it isn't affiliated.

The website domain is still gpt4all.io, the project is still named "GPT4All Chat" and the GitHub project's title is "gpt4all-chat". Not sure how that is responding to the criticism that the project name is misleading. It's not that I don't like the name, is that it seems you're trying to make people believe the project is something it's not.

Making things clear on the very first page that this is not chatgpt is not "actively trying to mislead people"

Now serving Coca-Cola!*

*(not Coca-Cola)

Except this isn't coca cola. This is a term of art that is widely used in the industry and a number. OpenAI is welcome to rebrand on something that isn't so generic.

It widely used in the context of OpenAI’s model specifically. It is also a trademarked term.

Doesn’t matter what the front page says, you’re still using the GPT4 name.

I saw the project name and my first impression was gpt4 based. Having a pun or wordplay with an appeal to virtue doesn’t make it not misleading. It’s misleading. Rethink.

How about calling it GPTJ4All which is more honest, or if you think you will transcend GPTJ, GPTForAll? Or GPT”4”All?

If you want to target people who care about Apache 2.0 licensing, you should listen to the same people who tell you the name is offensive and scammy-seeming. Otherwise you alienate half your initial target market before you even start. It is not too late to accept feedback and change the name. My 2 cents.

When the name was chosen it wasn't based on GPTJ. Now it is. There is no deception and the website was updated to respond to this criticism. It isn't affiliated and it clearly states that.

> When the name was chosen it wasn't based on GPTJ

> if you think you will transcend GPTJ

The comment you're replying to already addressed the possibility that you don't want to be tied to GPTJ in name. That's fine and understandable. The comment suggested other ideas to do a slight name change that will help you sound less deceptive while still getting to keep a similar idea in the branding. You haven't responded to the main point of the comment.

My 2¢: I saw the title on the front page and thought this was some version of GPT4 running locally. A lot of people are going to think that based on the name. I get why the name is clever but I agree with those saying you should consider a variant that is less misleading. Or, you know, just go with a brand new name. If Leela Zero was called Alpha Zero 4 All it would be weird.

Your name is much more misleading than analogous projects like "Open Office". It's clear Open Office has nothing to do with Microsoft Office just by looking at the name. "GPT4All" does not provide a clear enough level of understanding that it is not GPT4.

>it's literally "GPT for all"

It wouldn't have even occurred to me to read it any other way.

Come on gpt4all predates gpt4 (iirc) and it means gpt for all. OpenAI does not have a trademark on the number 4

While that may be true, to avoid confusion and considering GPT4 is magnitudes more advanced than this project and thus way more popular of a brand.. they should make this crystal clear in the first few lines

See the recent update to https://gpt4all.io which does exactly that:

"Running on your local computer, this model is not as powerful as those GPT models you can chat with over the internet by sending your data to large powerful servers and is not affiliated with them."

I have no idea, but the first commit in that repo is this one: https://github.com/nomic-ai/gpt4all/commit/4f5c513e710b73ad5...

“Three weeks ago”

So uh… that’s total BS, unless there’s more history to it than is obvious.

GPT-J is a 6 billion parameter model. (3.4% of the size of GPT-3) Having used both, I'd say it's worse than Alpaca-7B, which itself is not ChatGPT-grade.

GPT-3.5 is probably a finetuned Curie (13B). But GPT-J is so far down on the benchmarks, it's definitely not "ChatGPT-grade".

Vicuna-13B v1.1 is arguably though.

Hard agree. I cringe at these projects using GPT4 name. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of these devs don't even have access to the actual GPT4 API.

'evil'. Enough with the hyperbole.

>2. There's no direct link to the actual model used, just a reference to GPT-J.

It mentions it in the Github README.

>Building and running

>Download https://huggingface.co/EleutherAI/gpt-j-6b

4 in the name isn’t terribly misleading.

The name could also age well after GPT5 comes out.

It stood out to me as “for” more then the current GPT model.

Not sure why this post was downvoted but I concur. I never read GPT4All as "(GPT4)-all" but as "GPT for all", as in "a ChatGPT-like thing that everyone can run locally". It surprises me somewhat that someone reads this as "related to GPT4", but it annoys me even more that the person also immediately assumes malice.

You can refer to it as GPT for all, but it sure looks like it uses the name to bank on the fact that GPT4 is popular, even if it has no relation to it.

It banks on the fact that "GPT" is popular, definitely, but not "GPT-4" (the specific version) in particular.

I read it as 'for' but I'd still call it a bit misleading regarding what it can do. However, this is a very fast moving topic and a month from now this entire post will be about as relevant as the Saxon Chronicles.

A good test will be what happens once ChatGPT 5 or 6 is out.

I suspect people will stop using gpt4all and Devs will come up with some inexplicable reason to name their junk project gpt7.

No, no. It will be GPT5forAll then.

You're being cynical for no good reason. Everything we've done has been put out under Apache 2 or MIT license. We take the 4 all seriously. See here for proof: https://github.com/nomic-ai/gpt4all-chat/issues/62#issue-167...

Even if you didn't mean 'for', compare the mobile service company 'Three' which was named to refer to 3g and are doing fine with the same name even though they now sell 5g service.

Difference is GPT4all is likely stuck at GPT2.5 quality forever.

It'd be like Three calling naming themselves after 3g but offering 2.5g then continuing to offer than while everyone moved on to 5g.

I'm doing my best to always be constructive and I'd suggest that what we really need is something that could work as an edge processor.

I appreciate this as a dry joke, but I think the original name might have been named to stay that way for a while, to keep the community attached to such a movement.

I'm not sure why I was downvoted.

It might not be 100% clear, but the user of "4" as part of naming something is not uncommon in common vernacular.

The timing isn't permanent to me, the meaning of using GPT4 will prevail in the long run when GPT5,6,7 goes.

This is an old joke started by Yannic Kilcher when he named his model gpt4Chan

GPT is going to become a common noun soon, just like people associated google with search engine.

That annoys me as well that everything AI is GPT something even if nobody but open ai has access to GTP models, but that's how it is.

We can't stop that train.

Let's not confuse the liars (GPT4All) with the real ones. Microsoft works with OpenAI and so Bing does use GPT-4. Github Copilot is GPT-3 based. Notion AI is GPT-3.

There is a clear difference between the GPT family and the mimicry.

They are going to try to stop that train. They have a pending application for a trademark on the term GPT and I suspect they wouldn't have applied for trademark protection if they didn't intend to stop others from using it.

And they should fail. The term is generic and widely used before they tried to brand with it.

They already have been granted trademark protection for GPT-3[1]. If I had to place a bet one way or the other, I would guess they will get GPT as well. You say it's widely used but even here GPT is mostly synonymous with OpenAI products and services. Even in this thread, plenty of people are complaining about the confusion caused by the name GPT4All.

[1]: https://trademarks.justia.com/900/92/gpt-90092493.html

The fact that this confusion exists actually argues why they shouldn't be granted it actually as this project exists prior to them receiving it.

But they didn't trademark GPT which would be the case if your analogy was to work.

It's pending.

And they didn't because GPT was a term of art in the industry long before it was a gleam in OpenAI's trademarking eyes.

Do you have a source for that? I thought it came from the 2018 OpenAI paper "Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre-Training".

4. All trust goes out the window when text is unnecessarily center-aligned

yeah at best this is a silly mistake but it's probably an understood move to ride the coat tails of the GPT4 hype cycle. No way a 3GB model is GPT4 and it runs on a CPU.

this does seem like a scam, maybe they should take it down before someone actually downloads and tries to run the thing

Your loss. GPT is a term of art in the industry. It isn’t owned by OpenAI.

But GPT4 is associated with OpenAI

GPT4 is like SearchEngine4

This argument came up on the post about MiniGPT-4 earlier. The thing is, it’s not us you need to convince. If OpenAI starts hitting you with takedown notices, your hosting providers aren’t going to hear your arguments and go “Ah, ya got us on this one!”

Granted, maybe OpenAI will decide not to go after you, it’s up to them in the end. But if their lawyers feel these projects threaten to genericize the “GPT-4” trademark, they will be obligated to issue takedowns or they’ll risk claims that they aren’t defending their mark.

And if they do that they will really be putting to bed that openai is not so open won't they and have strayed far from their founding goals. But I don't believe they will do this. Lots of good people at OpenAI who I think can/will stand up to any money lords who've come into the place.

> Lots of good people at OpenAI who I think can/will stand up

Concretely ?

They did this to DALL-E Mini, that’s why they had to change their name to craiyon. This highly visible action did not seem to sway public opinion on OpenAI much. The whole “they aren’t actually open” thing is already priced in to people’s opinions. OpenAI’s models are so important that people have to put that to the side.

I agree that the idea that openai isn't so "open" is now baked in. But shaming is still having an effect. Have received responses from people inside openai who appreciate this project.

Your attempt at hiding your marketing driven decision is lame. You're obviously trying to leverage the OpenAI name.

I mean, you could have called it gpt5, because it's 5x better. But you didn't.

We take the 4all seriously. Everything we've put out is under Apache 2.0 or MIT license.

Perhaps the name is a pun on 'for all' and a dig at OpenAI's lack of, well, openness.

It absolutely is that, but they should have made a cleverer pun because this one is misleading for noobs and general audience.

okay, but Gimp was worse! am sure they can get over this little bump, I watched the interview with the founder and like the motives and progress.

I some ways it's a bit like windows claiming OS1 to prevent OS2? This is also a pun, a very old one!

OpenAI owns incremental numbering of a common term?

You mean like windows 11 or office 2023? Yes, absolutely.

hey I just made Car2, but it actually has 2 wheels 1 seat and no engine...what do you mean it's a bicycle?

Unfortunately not too many people want bike without engines these days.

Actually they do have a trademark on the words GPT GPT-3 and GPT-4. Interestingly, no application for GPT-5

Maybe it's best if the open source sticks with LLM or some other term, and popularize that instead

Reply on news.ycombinator.com