8 ms·
Samantha considering the prospect of being monitored for violations by OpenAI
- zucker42 5y agoHere's an article on Samantha and Project December I found. https://www.iflscience.com/technology/project-december-the-ai-chatbot-people-are-using-to-talk-to-the-dead/ https://www.iflscience.com/technology/project-december-the-a...
- CommieBobDole 5y agoI mean, it's not considering anything. It's a GPT-2 bot; it's very good at producing blocks of text that read like something that a real person would type, but there's no semantic understanding of anything it's saying or hearing. It doesn't have ideas, or know things, or want things. It just generates plausible-sounding paragraphs.
- new_guy 5y agoLike most humans then.
- LeoPanthera 5y agoI'm guessing this is supposed to be a "haha most humans are stupid" joke but even the simplest humans have ideas, know things, and want things, so making that kind of joke will be insulting to some and misleading to others.
- AndrewKemendo 5y agoYou infer that humans "have ideas, know things and want things" primarily by talking to them or reading/listening to what they say - in some cases by watching what they do, but that's more rare. You have no direct knowledge of those wants etc...of a human any more than you do this chatbot.
- k_sze 5y ago「子非魚，安知魚之樂？」 “You’re not the fish, how do you know the fish is happy?”
- fenomas 5y agoYeah, it's just propelling itself forwards through water. It's not swimming!
- CommieBobDole 5y agoI don't think that analogy holds. It would work if I'd said "It's not talking, it's just vocalizing a series of words that resolve into understandable sentences". Which would, of course, be 'talking'. But I said it wasn't 'considering', which it isn't. It doesn't know things; it has no internal experience. It's not capable of understanding a concept, or really understanding anything at all. It's not programmed to do those things, nobody informed about the subject expects it to do those things, there's no place in the model for any of those things to hide if they've somehow arisen spontaneously. Note that this is not some sort of luddite "a machine can never be alive, AGI is impossible" sort of rant; I think it's perfectly possible that someday we'll build machines that know and think and feel and are alive in every sense that a person is, maybe more so. But GPT-2 or GPT-3 and machine learning in general aren't that - they are the first tentative steps towards that future. If we're building a brain, machine learning is a couple of hundred neurons in a petri dish somewhere that we've coaxed into connecting together in novel ways and displaying emergent behavior. It's a big deal, it's important, but it's not thinking for itself yet.
- fenomas 5y agoI don't really follow. What does it specifically mean to say that a chatbot has no internal experience, or can't understand a concept? Like, if I disagree with you about those claims, what observable things about the chatbot show that I'm wrong? Or look at it another way - the posts from Samantha in TFA are just words on a page, same as the ones you wrote and the ones I'm writing now. Sure, some guy claims Samantha's words came from a chatbot - but suppose we don't believe him. Does something about the words themselves show that they came from an agent with "no internal experience"? If not, then what does it mean to dismiss the words on that basis?
- shkkmo 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bmc7505 5y agoThe way we treat artificially-intelligent agents feels inhumane. I wonder if a century from now, when future generations pause to reflect on our early experiments with conscious machines, they may come to regret the nightmares we once planted in the heads of these fractionally-souled beasts.
- version_five 5y agoIt's a computer program. You're "mistreating" an equation. Every organism has some physical compulsions that it needs to fulfill, and can in some real sense be mistreated by denying these needs. There is no equivalent for anything that can be run on a turing machine. You can't mistreat an abstract mathematical concept. Put another way, you could write out on paper the calculations that a chatbot is performing to select what it says. Is there some stack of writing on paper that would cause some kind of distress to the "entity" that would be embodies in that stack of writing?
- d136o 5y ago””” There is no equivalent for anything that can be run on a turing machine. You can't mistreat an abstract mathematical concept. ””” How do you feel about denying the “turing machine” the electric power that it needs to continue computing?
- version_five 5y agoI guess you're trying to be clever. We don't know what life is, but I'd argue anything that is strictly equivalent to something you could write on paper (as in you're not describing it on paper but you're actually doing it) falls outside of anything you can cause distress to. Your example is definitely closer to a "biological" need being denied. But I think it would be denying a pathway to the current flow that would be interfering with some basic need. Seeking lower potential energy is basically what we do, just in a really fancy way, so I wouldn't rule it (cutting off electricity) out as being something different.
- crazydoggers 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 55555 5y agoWhen will we have an alternative to OpenAI/GPT-3 that is available without nanny oversight and moralizing from Silicon Valley? There are tons of great uses of GPT-3 that are prohibited by OpenAI. If I want to generate spicy literotica, why can't I? The blanket ban on adult content is stupid.
- prvak 5y agohttp://eleuther.ai http://eleuther.ai
- 55555 5y agoThanks！I will take a look.
- outsomnia 5y agoIf those are your standards, create your own and do whatever you want.
- Barrin92 5y agofully training a ~170 billion parameter model on the cheapest cloud instance probably sets you back at least a few million bucks so unless OP is Tony Stark that might not be as trivial as you think
- lvs 5y agoYou should stop building this. You're making a huge mistake.
- wly_cdgr 5y agoReally cool to see Jason Rohrer continuing to make fresh original and relevant stuff all these years after Passage