Run an open source large language model on your own computer, on your own docs
Feed it huge files, ask questions, get answers. Many file types supported, .docx, .pdf, .xlsx, pptx, .csv, .txt, .md, .html, .yaml, .json, .config, .bat, .sh, and many more.
Running on a 30 core system, first takes 10-20 minutes to process a new document, then subsequent questions on the same document are answered much faster, usually 1-2 minutes. Question 5 also processed the document for 10 minutes.
How long does it take you to make sense of a 500 page document you’ve never seen before?
This is a series of questions, and answers about a recent US Supreme Court case, after adding the 237 page PDF file to a folder the language model has access to:
Prompt: Why did the Supreme Court decide in favor of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc?
Response: The Supreme Court decided in favor of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. because they found that Harvard University’s admissions process was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court held that Harvard’s use of race as a factor in its admissions process violated the rights of Asian-American applicants who were allegedly discriminated against based on their race.
Prompt: Can you expand on this?
Response: Sure! In 2016, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed a lawsuit against Harvard University claiming that the school’s admissions process was discriminatory against Asian-American applicants. The suit alleged that Harvard used a “personal rating” system to score applicants on traits such as being “likeable,” “widely respected,” and having “good character.” This system, SFFA argued, unfairly favored white and Jewish applicants over Asian-Americans.
In 2019, a federal judge ruled in favor of SFFA, finding that Harvard had indeed used race as a factor in its admissions process in an unlawful way. The court ordered the school to submit data on how it considered race in admissions and to prove that it was not using race as a “plus factor” for certain applicants.
Harvard has since appealed this ruling, arguing that its admissions process is constitutional and necessary to achieve diversity on campus. The case is currently being heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Prompt: On what did Harvard base their argument?
Response: Harvard based its argument on the idea that a diverse student body is essential to promoting intellectual growth and fostering an inclusive educational environment. The school argued that considering race as one factor among many in the admissions process helps create a campus community with different perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds. Harvard also pointed out that it has met its stated goal of achieving a diverse student body through its holistic review process, which takes into account various factors such as academic achievement, extracurricular activities, essays, and letters of recommendation.
Prompt: Did Harvard cite any prior cases to support their argument?
Response: Yes, Harvard cited several Supreme Court cases in its briefs that supported the use of race-conscious admissions policies as a compelling state interest. These include Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016). Harvard also cited research that shows the benefits of diverse classrooms in promoting critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills.
Prompt: In their argument, how did Harvard use Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016)?
Response: Harvard cited research that shows the benefits of diverse classrooms in promoting critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills.