The web is already FULL of bad medical information. Older folks treat it as gospel already. All this technology does is make both good and bad information more accessible.
More importantly, there is NOTHING anyone can do to stop this. Nothing the US government can do will stop the proliferation of AI models that do everything including giving medical advice (or other things that we know it will screw up)
"Dr. P<hil>" is still on TV.
I take a pragmatic view on these things - assuming appeals to morality and ethics will fail, what do we do to educate people about this?
People have mostly learned photos can be edited. What we need are outlandish experiments and examples, and then media showing off how wild this technology is.
Attempting to bubblewrap this tech both won't work and will lead to more confusion.
I have shared a notebook and explained detailed steps in my blog - https://medium.com/@iamarunbrahma/fine-tuning-of-falcon-7b-l.... If you are interested to replicate the steps on medical-domain therapy chat transcripts, you are definitely welcome. If you face any issues during fine-tuning steps, you can connect with me on my blog. Would love to help out!
Skill issue - focus more on data integrity & less on HN clout
This is Hacker News. These types of projects are half of the reason I come here, what's with the hate?
I wonder if retrieval augmented generation would be appropriate here too. Fast, scalable. Fine-tuning is comparatively pretty expensive.
Thanks for sharing your code, iamarunbrahma.
RAG and fine-tuning serves a slightly different purpose. Fine-tuning helps LLM in learning a new task/skill such as question/answering task, summarization task etc, and improving reliability at producing a desired output such as JSON format structure thereby reducing dependency on prompt engineering.
On the other hand, RAG provides you with external domain-specific knowledge, which one can leverage to get latest information.
I get people wanting to be FIRST in a space, but they seem to continuously be the people least needing to be first. Will this ever be something viable? maybe, but it definitely is not now. Yes, it can't get there without going through the growing pains, but let's work those pains out in less detrimental areas first. Areas with much less fallout when it does go wrong
How do you expect something to go from “toy” to “viable” if people are not stepping up to build upon the body of knowledge? A lot of people who have created innovative solutions were likely, by your definition, to be among the “least needed” people in a space.
Maybe you would benefit by trying to understand why a harmless toy and proof-of-concept is so threatening.
the words toy and mental health should never be mixed together. this is exactly why it is threatening. someone cavalier enough to think that a group of computer programmers throwing together a chatBot to interact with mental health is just, well, mental.
We cannot let fear stall innovation because of someone might use it incorrectly.
This isn't a case of "manning up" and doing something scary. We're not astronauts going to the moon or any other situation where the decisions made will only affect you. This is a matter that when the product is misused or has a "glitch", it is not the maker that suffers.
The fact that you will not even acknowledge this just proves maybe you are not the right person for this.
I'm sure OP is not going to go out and treat patients with this. 7B barely produces sensical sentences most of the time.
This is the sort of stuff that might get legislation passed on open source models or turn public opinion against them.
Yes the USA's most powerful union is the AMA and yes they're the reason # of doctors are low and doctor salaries are skyhigh (especially compared to doctors in the rest of the world), but this is not the way to address the problem, at least not yet!