3 ms·

I get a different output each time. Here is attempt #3 on the same prompt. Attempt #2 produced gibberish. https://pastebin.com/zTNu7Faa https://pastebin.com/zT

I get a different output each time. Here is attempt #3 on the same prompt. Attempt #2 produced gibberish. https://pastebin.com/zTNu7Faa https://pastebin.com/zTNu7Faa Is that a joke at the end? I'm loosing perspective.

minimaxir 6y ago
The only way to get the same output each time is to set the temperature to 0 (which I don't think you can do in AI Dungeon)
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Interesting bit about God at the end (it makes the reddit mistake of thinking about God as a ‘being among beings’ though, so you get a sense of the data set it was trained on). It reminded me of child super-prodigies that get lost in thoughts about death: https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/leaders/the-curse-of-being-a-child-genius-20190522-p51pyu https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/leaders/the-curse-of-be...
- bawolff 6y ago
  Is being among being wrong? There's a lot of religions with varying notions of the divine, but the divine as personified into a single q-like entity seems to be a pretty common conception, and not just in reddit. For that matter, if whichever deity you believe in is good, all powerful and all knowing, why is there still evil & pain in the world, is probably one of the most common criticisms of religion, and not just on reddit. And that seems to be roughly the criticism gpt-3 is making.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    Some background: https://www.nwcatholic.org/voices/commentary/who-god-is-and-is-not.html https://www.nwcatholic.org/voices/commentary/who-god-is-and-...
    - bawolff 6y ago
      So having the divine be the first cause, the initial answer to: why there is something instead of nothing, is certainly a view on religion (i hope that's a fair summary of the point the article is trying to make). However, at least ancedotally, its not usually the view that i usually hear religious people espouse. Typically religious people i have met believe in some sort of sacred text with rules of behaviour that was at the very least divinely inspired. They believe that a divine power will intercede on their behalf based on prayer (or other offerings), and so on. All these things imply a deity that has independent will, can be influenced, has opinions on moral questions, etc. The theists i have met do not believe in some abstract first cause deity. They believe in a deity that is very much a being, a maximal one, albeit perhaps very far removed from earthly existence. So who is to say the "reddit" conception of a "being among beings" is wrong or a category error. If we have to chose a specific conception, wouldn't the most popular conception (regardless of what any particular group's doctrine might say) be the right one to choose? And if we dont have to pick a specific conception, aren't any and all conceptions equally right?
      - mensetmanusman 6y ago
        Well, one can never argue about anything when everyone picks their own truth... (This is a post-Enlightenment trend that will last a few hundred more years until the tracked demographic trends play out).
        bawolff 6y ago
        I don't think that's really fair nor do i think is it a post-enlightenment trend (moral relavitism is...but i dont think that is the same thing). So far you've claimed that gpt is "wrong" in its religious conception (comparing it to "reddit" in a condescending way). You presented an alternate view on what religion is. You missed the step where you show your view is more right than GPT's is, in context. Which to be fair is a really hard step to show. If you know somebody's particular religious beliefs you can appeal to doctrine, but we dont know which denomination/doctrine for the gpt-3 story. I don't think we can show that gpt-3 or your category mistake version is right based on the given information. Or even that one is slightly more right. But that is a different question from is the gpt-3 story "wrong". I'm not positing that "being among beings" is correct, only that there isn't any argument to conclude its any more wrong than any other conception, especially when we don't know the religious beliefs of the protaganist in the story, and thus its wrong to conclude he is "wrong" (being wrong is not the opposite of being right)

minimaxir 6y ago

The only way to get the same output each time is to set the temperature to 0 (which I don't think you can do in AI Dungeon)

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Interesting bit about God at the end (it makes the reddit mistake of thinking about God as a ‘being among beings’ though, so you get a sense of the data set it was trained on). It reminded me of child super-prodigies that get lost in thoughts about death: https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/leaders/the-curse-of-being-a-child-genius-20190522-p51pyu https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/leaders/the-curse-of-be...

bawolff 6y ago
Is being among being wrong? There's a lot of religions with varying notions of the divine, but the divine as personified into a single q-like entity seems to be a pretty common conception, and not just in reddit. For that matter, if whichever deity you believe in is good, all powerful and all knowing, why is there still evil & pain in the world, is probably one of the most common criticisms of religion, and not just on reddit. And that seems to be roughly the criticism gpt-3 is making.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Some background: https://www.nwcatholic.org/voices/commentary/who-god-is-and-is-not.html https://www.nwcatholic.org/voices/commentary/who-god-is-and-...
  - bawolff 6y ago
    So having the divine be the first cause, the initial answer to: why there is something instead of nothing, is certainly a view on religion (i hope that's a fair summary of the point the article is trying to make). However, at least ancedotally, its not usually the view that i usually hear religious people espouse. Typically religious people i have met believe in some sort of sacred text with rules of behaviour that was at the very least divinely inspired. They believe that a divine power will intercede on their behalf based on prayer (or other offerings), and so on. All these things imply a deity that has independent will, can be influenced, has opinions on moral questions, etc. The theists i have met do not believe in some abstract first cause deity. They believe in a deity that is very much a being, a maximal one, albeit perhaps very far removed from earthly existence. So who is to say the "reddit" conception of a "being among beings" is wrong or a category error. If we have to chose a specific conception, wouldn't the most popular conception (regardless of what any particular group's doctrine might say) be the right one to choose? And if we dont have to pick a specific conception, aren't any and all conceptions equally right?
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      Well, one can never argue about anything when everyone picks their own truth... (This is a post-Enlightenment trend that will last a few hundred more years until the tracked demographic trends play out).
      - bawolff 6y ago
        I don't think that's really fair nor do i think is it a post-enlightenment trend (moral relavitism is...but i dont think that is the same thing). So far you've claimed that gpt is "wrong" in its religious conception (comparing it to "reddit" in a condescending way). You presented an alternate view on what religion is. You missed the step where you show your view is more right than GPT's is, in context. Which to be fair is a really hard step to show. If you know somebody's particular religious beliefs you can appeal to doctrine, but we dont know which denomination/doctrine for the gpt-3 story. I don't think we can show that gpt-3 or your category mistake version is right based on the given information. Or even that one is slightly more right. But that is a different question from is the gpt-3 story "wrong". I'm not positing that "being among beings" is correct, only that there isn't any argument to conclude its any more wrong than any other conception, especially when we don't know the religious beliefs of the protaganist in the story, and thus its wrong to conclude he is "wrong" (being wrong is not the opposite of being right)