Qwen: chat and pretrained large language model by Alibaba Cloud
github.com
github.com
* "If you are commercially using the Materials, and your product or service has more than 100 million monthly active users, You shall request a license from Us."
* "You can not use the Materials or any output therefrom to improve any other large language model (excluding Tongyi Qianwen or derivative works thereof)."
[1]: https://github.com/QwenLM/Qwen/blob/main/LICENSE
So, thanks Facebook for setting a truly awful precedence that other corporate lawyers will now copy. We may not be entitled to your work, but your awful behaviour seem to cause Alibaba as well to claim that their model is open rather than what it really is: available. I need to come up with a t-shirt design mocking the appropriation going on (well, outright violation when Facebook says that LLaMa is compatible with open science) so that I can wear it at upcoming conferences.
Qwen models had compatibility issues last time I tried it though.
(Asking for redwood, who's comment was inexplicably flagged).
The Chinese government makes the topic fascinating by banning it. Just like banned books in China get a sales boost at street side book sellers, or kids wear something their parents specifically tell them not to wear.
I guess we can continue to be fascinated by it and Chinese citizens can continue to look at us weird when we speak about it like it’s the secret to immortality or something.
Having lived in Beijing for 9 years, Chinese are mostly the same, they are interested in whatever is controversial in the states (if they are interested in the state, since we don’t ban much) and ignore anything else. Ya, you aren’t going to get any points bringing up 6/4, even at PKU (but you can’t go to PKU on 6/4 so don’t worry about that), but you’ll hear plenty of dirty laundry about your country from them, so don’t worry, the conversations will still be good.
So for an LLM it's an interesting question about what comprises its training model. How massaged/edited/censored is the input data, in whose service is the cleansing being performed?
So at best the complaint boils down to this: China has the wrong politically incorrect topics and we have the right politically incorrect topics. And of course, once the complaint is reduced to this form, its irrelevance to the topic at hand (LLMs) is evident.
Is there a historical event ChatGPT won't tell you about?
Do you think Americans would react that way if they were asked about the Kent massacre?
Edit: but now I see the thread has basically been ruined and it's going to be about politics instead of anything new and interesting about the model, congrats everyone.
Questioning whether all this tech innovation should be shared with authoritaria regimes is a damn valid question to be asked and often as possible.
Like I said, discussing model politics have a place but bringing it up every time a model is mentioned is distracting and prevents adult discussion. It would be like if every time a company comes up, the thread gets spammed with discussion about the worst thing that company has ever done instead of discussing it in context.
For example, ChatGPT’s practical usability is regularly hobbled by alignment concerns, notably more so in 3.5 than 4. It’s a worthy topic, not a distraction and characterizing it as something other than ‘adult discussion’ is nothing more than an egocentric encoding of your specific interests into a ranking of importance you impose on others. A little humility goes a long way.
We’re here to be curious and that includes addressing misconceptions, oversights and incorrect assumptions. That all still counts as adult discussion.
Any model produced by any North American or European companies, even X, may be trained in a way that would be politically correct to the taste of the company, some are left leaning and some are right leaning, but the topics being censored by the model will still be far lesser than the model being created by a Chinese/Russian companies. This is because for the companies to survive in a totalitarian government, the company must bent and satisfy all the filtering request by the government.
This terminology makes you sound antiquated and prejudiced, FWIW.
Attributing particular people's claims to an entire country doesn't really make sense for the most part.
Although 中国人 Zhōng guó rén = China person, Chinaman is close to literal.
The whole "person" instead of "man" is also a Western fad, since 他/她 tā = he/she is naturally ambiguous spoken, and 人 rén = person/people occurs naturally when gender is less relevant.