The False Promise of Imitating Proprietary LLMs
This is exactly the reason OpenAI isn&#x27;t afraid of the open-source community, like many kneejerk opponents of regulatory capture assume (they are probably still afraid of Google). Also why they still do the expensive and cumbersome RLHF training, instead of those deceptively cheap and fast finetunes. They understand their own tech and why there isn&#x27;t free lunch.<p>Recently, John Schulman explained the issue with behavior cloning and it&#x27;s a very typical ML problem.[1] Basically: what are we training the model to do? The model updates after finetuning in a holistic manner, based on the sum total of its content and capability. Suppose GPT-4 can correctly answer to many requests because it knows correct answers, in the sense that it has something isomorphic to an internal knowledge graph and tools for querying it, and that graph contains sufficient data for its tools to derive an answer at inference. RLHF reinforces this behavior by constraining the distribution of outputs (essentially, steering the model away from applying inappropriate tools for respective inputs, e.g. employing fantasy-narrative or bad-yahoo-answers cognitive routines when asked something that looks like a straightforward factual question).<p>Now suppose you teach LLaMA-13B to imitate those responses by SFTing it on a dump of successful GPT-4 conversations. But LLaMA doesn&#x27;t have internals that would have enabled it to find the same answers; so on the object level it shallowly memorizes specific items of the post-training dataset, and on the meta-level it learns the stylistic flourish of a high-powered model. But it starts to hallucinate confident nonsense whenever you step out of the training distribution, because it doesn&#x27;t actually learn to query its own knowledge graph. A little anthropomorphism won&#x27;t hurt: you create an incapable impostor this way, a wannabe nerd, a character who is used to guessing the teacher&#x27;s password and being praised, instead of understanding the subject, and keeps raising its hand whenever a question is asked, but is painfully clueless.<p>Indeed, the early and cheap success of behavior cloning was a massive red flag unto itself. There&#x27;s no way all the compute and data that went into training GPT-3&#x2F;3.5&#x2F;4 tier models can be substituted with gently demonstrating the attitude vector. If we had models that were markedly less capable but comparably honest, we would have reasons for hope that this line terminates in a genuine open-source peer competitor; instead, we have total fraud.<p>It is a nontrivial task to have a model generalize epistemic honesty and not a lower-order behavior like clamping up and kowtowing <i>or</i> bullshitting from external examples; train it to say &quot;I don&#x27;t know&quot; whenever it actually does not, but only then.<p>There are clever approaches here, but they&#x27;re not such a low-hanging fruit as what passes for open-source right now.<p>1. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;hhiLw5Q_UFg?t=685" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;hhiLw5Q_UFg?t=685</a>