First they tried to take control of the DF subreddit (Source). Apparently it was solved on good terms.

Also, newer versions are much more controlled in term of what you can generate. No more NSFW allowed, no more "famous artists" based models. They was also rumors about new license terms (not sure if it did happen actually) that essentially provide them with legal power to force users to update to a newer version (as crazy as it sounds). There is a reason that the community is still using 1.5 version over the 2.0 version.

Honestly, the way I see it, Stability AI are not doing it with bad intentions (at least I hope), and are kind of forced to do that, as they are a legal entity and have to address all the threats of legislative actions regarding explicit sexual contents and living artists.

In a sex dungeon?

Unknown forces, like the Megacorp that controls the tech

Unfortunate, but I figured. Something's up when the Russians are the only ones releasing LLMs

I think there is still a ton to learn about usefulness of the training data itself, and how we can find out what is an optimal "fit" for a LLM? Right now, the big LLM's simply have the kitchen sink thrown at them. Who's to say that will automatically outperform a leaner, high quality, data set? And again, "high quality" for us me be different to an AI?

What problems are the computational neuroscientists trying to solve? Modeling parts of brains using artificial neural networks (the ML kind)?

At the whims of unknown forces I expect

multimodal here means questions contain pictures.

So, it is obvious gpt would underperform since it doesn't work with pictures, lol?..

Maybe it’s not just about the right combination of words, it’s that they came from someone who is supposed to be an authority figure in that sphere. If you’re the Dean of a school, thinking and speaking about these issues should be resonating with you in a way it wouldn’t with either a pr team or chatbot, because neither are responsible for students

which field? ai danger awareness? It was in the terminator movie.

Computational neuroscientists, they use a lot of the same techniques but for different purposes.

Plus a lot of the leading research centres for computational neuroscience tend to also be involved in AI and machine learning

Hm? Care to elaborate on what they’re doing to “regain control?”

Fine-tuned towards taking these sorts of tests, or just more optimised in general?

>He could be a little nicer and more optimistic about others' intelligence.

Apologies for sounding flippant, but the whole political situation since '15 or so has shown that he's too optimistic himself...

Not in this omniverse

Seems like a dumb ruling but at the same time it was like dumb for them to leave in the citation.

This wasn't academic research or some competitive writing task for money, fame, or professional validity. It was just a letter. I don't think you really need to cite sources in something like that. PR companies never get cited when they draft a letter or speech.

Yep, and where does that leave us?

32k context window it seems.

https://mobile.twitter.com/transitive_bs/status/1628118163874516992?s=20

Of course no. Unless the research is done within a University context (or publicly funded), you won't have the model open source. SD is maybe the exception, and it seems to me like they regret releasing it and are now doing whatever they can to regain control.

Their paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00923

Github: https://github.com/amazon-science/mm-cot

I think if you're getting them to proofread after it's been written, then no, but if you're getting them to write the whole thing for you then yes.

I don't get it. Why are they comparing their model's performance to regular humans and not experts, like every other papers ? Does it mean these tests are "average difficulty" ? I read somewhere that GPT3.5 had a 55.5% score on MMLU, while PalM was at 75 and human experts 88.8. How would this CoT model perform on standards benchmarks, then ? I feel scammed rn.

The human performance number is not from this paper, it is from the original ScienceQA paper. They are they ones that did the benchmarking.

One critique I saw in another thread is that this was "fine-tuned to hell and back" compared to GPT-3, which could explain some of the increased performance, so take that as you will.

No. I haven't seen anyone talking about it because it beat humans, it was always about it beating GPT-3 with less than 1B parameters. Beating humans was just the cherry on top. The paper is "flashy" enough, including experts wouldn't change that. Many papers do include expert performance as well, it's not a stretch to expect it.