view the rest of the comments
LocalLLaMA
Welcome to LocalLLaMA! Here we discuss running and developing machine learning models at home. Lets explore cutting edge open source neural network technology together.
Get support from the community! Ask questions, share prompts, discuss benchmarks, get hyped at the latest and greatest model releases! Enjoy talking about our awesome hobby.
As ambassadors of the self-hosting machine learning community, we strive to support each other and share our enthusiasm in a positive constructive way.
Rules:
Rule 1 - No harassment or personal character attacks of community members. I.E no namecalling, no generalizing entire groups of people that make up our community, no baseless personal insults.
Rule 2 - No comparing artificial intelligence/machine learning models to cryptocurrency. I.E no comparing the usefulness of models to that of NFTs, no comparing the resource usage required to train a model is anything close to maintaining a blockchain/ mining for crypto, no implying its just a fad/bubble that will leave people with nothing of value when it burst.
Rule 3 - No comparing artificial intelligence/machine learning to simple text prediction algorithms. I.E statements such as "llms are basically just simple text predictions like what your phone keyboard autocorrect uses, and they're still using the same algorithms since <over 10 years ago>.
Rule 4 - No implying that models are devoid of purpose or potential for enriching peoples lives.
I recall OpenAI saying to a courtroom judge that modern AI requires training off copyrighted material. And obviously the AI labs cannot just release those.
Distlled models (aka models that train themselves off the responses from other AI models) could probably release all the AI responses they used for training, since afaik AI generated content is not copyrightable..
However I suspect that most modern models are built from previous models. For example Claude Fable is probably based on Claude Sonnet or something. And for a downstream model to be fully "open source" and reproducible, you would need to reproduce the upstream model too. So even if a downstream model didn't use copyrighted data (eg it only used distills), one of the upstream models likely did.
They could still release a manifest of hashed contents and metadata.
What would be an application for this? More transparency for court cases? Or enable people to search for an alternative source for the data, like a torrent?
It would allow users to audit the dataset for ethical concerns, to interrogate the set to understand what a model does and does not "know", to identify weaknesses and biases, and to ensure that nothing has been inserted specifically to engineer prompt responses. Just examples off the top of my head.
Knowledge should be relatively impossible, though, if you just get the names and hashsums of the files? I mean I guess you could look up if a specific file you already have is in it. Might have some application. It needs to be very detailed, though. If they just call it GitHub-dump-timestamp or Wikipedia-dump-2026 with some overall hash, that doesn't tell us anything.
Most resources have a URI, Universal Resource Identifier. Related to a URL, except that it doesn't necessarily tell you how to locate the resource it identifies, URIs have dozens of schemas (eg isbn: for books) that can identify virtually any kind of media. Ideally they would tell us the URI, all metadata, source/provenance/licensing information, and the hash of the resource. If they truly are training on anonymous unattributed blobs that they just mysteriously found in their dataset, well that would be interesting to learn.