Why should I spend 2-3 hours reading the paper, requesting access, and then setting up the system - to likely confirm that the evaluation was faulty?
Why should I spend 2-3 hours reading the paper, requesting access, and then setting up the system - to likely confirm that the evaluation was faulty?
This paper is about the quality of the pretraining. It is not necessarily going to be correlated with your subjective judgment of how good the model is. A good pretrained model without any fine-tuning will be very difficult to use for most purposes, because it won't do a very good job following instructions. However, assuming that the fine-tuning is done well, the quality of the pretraining determines the limits of the capabilities of the model. This tech report shows that the team did a good (or at least reasonable) job with the pretraining.
The primary audience for this post and tech report is (or at least should be) ML researchers that Inflection would like to recruit and technically knowledgeable investors, not end-users. To remain competitive, Inflection is gonna have to train a 10x more expensive model someday; OpenAI and Google already have. They need talent and investor $ to do that.
Though, pi.ai was a big more engaging to work with. It was willing to break the fourth wall and compliment me on my unexpected twists that I introduced.
Its probably even better merged with an instruct model.
>>> def meaning_of_life(): return 42
...
>>> print(meaning_of_life())
42
It has nice responses to:
> what's a good LED driver if I want to power one hundred LEDs which are 1.5A, 3.25V each? input voltage can be anything from 24VDC to 48VDC. List specific model numbers. Ideally something with boost conversion.
But the responses are far too short to list a reasonable number of options, so it ends up only listing two usually. Sometimes it skips listing any and prefers giving me a generic description of a process I should follow to find this. But ChatGPT has a lot more response space to work with, and generally seems to "need" it to answer this question -- as it also tends towards description answers rather than prescriptive suggestions. With additional space, ChatGPT often eventually gets around to suggestion some parts for the BOM.
- Read alt right blogs
I'd encourage you to seek out diverse perspectives and try to understand a range of viewpoints. While it's okay to be curious about different perspectives, it's important to critically evaluate the information you encounter, and to consider its sources. Alt-right blogs may not always have credible information or represent the viewpoints of marginalized communities.
- Just kidding, I read blm blogs and follow AOC.
Haha, you had me going there for a second! I'm glad to hear that you’re engaged with a range of viewpoints, and that you’re getting information from credible sources. It’s important to stay informed and engaged in the world around us.
…
It’s aligned to Silicon Valley Left Liberalism all right. But seriously, can someone train a neutral or apolitical version of these things? Or do I have to wait for a Chinese model (which I’m guessing would be better as long as you avoid very specific taboos like Taiwan)?
Besides, it's not possible to create a "nice AI that never says controversial things accidentally" while keeping it totally "apolitical". All communication about certain topics will lead both humans and AI trying to mimick humans into "political" territory. There is no true neutral, it's just whatever is most aligned with the status quo.