6 ms·

The latest version of gpt-3 spooked me the other day with: Me: Can here you here still here understand here what here I here am here asking here if here I here

The latest version of gpt-3 spooked me the other day with: Me: Can here you here still here understand here what here I here am here asking here if here I here put here words here in here between? Gpt: Yes, I can understand what you are asking if you put words in between. Me: What was the word that I put in between? Gpt: The word that you put in between is "here."

spiderfarmer 5y ago
That's shockingly good.
marcodiego 5y ago
Scary. If it improves a bit more, people will start questioning if the machine has soul or rights.
- gitfan86 5y ago
  My kids already debate if it is wrong to tell OK Google to shutup.
  - abinmn 5y ago
    you have got a great bunch there :)
- supermdguy 5y ago
  It's interesting, in the forums for the beta program there have been already been a few people making posts where they're convinced that the AI is conscious. That's never really been something I've thought about much since I know a little about how it works, but I could totally see how someone who didn't have as much context for how GPT-3 works could see it as some sort of sentience. https://community.openai.com/t/a-conversation-with-alec-a-conscious-ai/8209 https://community.openai.com/t/a-conversation-with-alec-a-co... https://community.openai.com/t/creepy-ai-behavior/10195 https://community.openai.com/t/creepy-ai-behavior/10195 https://community.openai.com/t/where-to-watch-what-the-ai-wants-to-show-us/8462 https://community.openai.com/t/where-to-watch-what-the-ai-wa...
  - marcodiego 5y ago
    Long time ago I wrote a small program. It simulated a simple world with creatures and food. Creatures had "energy" which was lost when they moved, when energy was low, they "looked for food close by" to feed. When energy was high, they "looked for a suitable partner close by" to reproduce. When they reached food, they gained energy, when they reached a "suitable partner" they turned in 3 creatures with combined energy equally distributed among them. To "look for", at each iteration, the creature randomly picked a test-target. If it had no current-target, the test-target was turned into its new current-target. If it had a current-target which was more distant than the test-target, then the test-target was copied to the current-target for the creature. Creatures had a "threshold". When its energy was above the threshold, it entered "reproduction mode"; when its energy was below the threshold, it entered feed mode. A "suitable partner" was any other creature which was also in "reproduction mode". When they "reproduced" the new creature threshold was an average of the threshold of its parents plus a small random number. It also had three settings: number of new generated creatures per unit of time, number of new food packs per unit of time and number of iterations per unit of time. It had a very "real behavior". After a few minutes running, I usually set the "number of new generated creatures per unit of time" to 0 and watched creatures look for food and reproduction. Set a small number of food packs and watched famine, set it high and saw creatures thrive... But, whenever it was the time to close the program, I had a small feeling. I didn't like stopping it. It was like killing an entire fishbowl.
    - andai 5y ago
      I guess you didn't implement save/load? :) That's super cool, did you ever put it online?
      - marcodiego 5y ago
        Didn't implement save. It was the late 90's and eventually lost the HD. Never put it online. Don't judge me, I did in Delphi (C++ Builder, actually). Simple and pleasurable to use IDE. I've been thinking about re-doing it in processing or p5, but never cared enough. It wouldn't be too much work though. Certainly a good exercise to learn a new language.
- jquery 5y ago
  Imho, not a matter of "if" but "when". I'm convinced that it will be a future civil rights battle, with young people largely on the "AI has rights" side and old people largely on the "AI has no rights" side.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    Then you grossly misunderstand how far along AI is. AGI is not even a remote possibility with current techniques and implementations (and I would contest, entirely impossible with digital logic). It's just massive amount of statistics that were computationally impossible given available hardware until recently. We don't have a baseline understanding of consciousness or intuition to a degree that we could even begin to replicate it.
    - rurp 5y ago
      While true, what you're saying is totally tangential to whether or not large numbers of people will treat AIs like they're conscious. Expecting masses of people to defer to subject matter experts, contrary to what their feelings tell them, isn't a bet I would have much confidence in given the current climate.
      - moffkalast 5y ago
        The concept of rights also makes no sense to a machine. The main reason rights are a thing are to prevent pain and suffering, which unless specifically implemented no AGI will likely have.
    - progforlyfe 5y ago
      I agree with that sentiment. Also I would estimate that AI would eliminate humans long before it would or could reach the level of what humans are. So we wouldn't exist to see such a world.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        > AI would eliminate humans long before it would or could reach the level of what humans are You think that an artificial agent with less than human level intelligence could destroy humanity? Then why hasn't a deranged human (or animal) already done so?
schleck8 5y ago
I tried this with the new open source GPT NeoX 20B model on GooseAI playground and it suceeded too: Q: Can here you here still here understand here what here I here am here asking here if here I here put here words here in here between? A: Yes. Q: What was the word that I put in between? A: The word was "here." It's capable of other languages as well, although not quite as fluent. Q: Kannst du auch Deutsch sprechen? Falls ja, was ist dein Lieblingswort? A: Ja, ich kann Deutsch sprechen. Mein Lieblingswort ist: "Wir sind die Weltmeister!"
- throwanem 5y ago
  This makes me wonder about a variant of the Turing test that I don't think I've seen explored. How would a conversational AI prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is an AI?
  - pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
    You mean that it is intelligent? Surely it’s trivial to prove you’re a computer by solving some math real fast. “Can you prove you’re a machine?” – “Sure, check this out:” runs Doom The intelligent part would be figuring out that you want it to drop the pretense. Although if it is intelligent enough, it might choose not to.
    - throwanem 5y ago
      I'm thinking in terms of a purely conversational interaction via text, akin to Turing's original formulation or the "AI box" elaboration, so Doom isn't really on the table - and in any case, how does it prove that it isn't a human running GZDoom via OBS or something? Similarly, the fast math thing seems like it could be faked by a human with an equation solver or something. I suppose the general formulation I'm groping toward here is the inverse of Turing's: if we assume a conversation in which one's interlocutor may be either a human or an AI capable of conversing in a way that's indistinguishable from human, how would the interlocutor unambiguously distinguish itself as not human?
      - 5y ago
guantanamo_bob 5y ago
Must :clap: have :clap: learned :clap: that :clap: from :clap: all :clap: the :clap: clapping :clap: that :clap: goes :clap: on :clap:.
- moffkalast 5y ago
  But does GPT-3 know what based is based on? Or why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
andreyk 5y ago
Might actually not be a huge feat given the transformer architecture and it's attention component - here was not that related to the rest of the sentence. Still, quite cool...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

spiderfarmer 5y ago

That's shockingly good.

marcodiego 5y ago

Scary. If it improves a bit more, people will start questioning if the machine has soul or rights.

gitfan86 5y ago
My kids already debate if it is wrong to tell OK Google to shutup.
- abinmn 5y ago
  you have got a great bunch there :)
supermdguy 5y ago
It's interesting, in the forums for the beta program there have been already been a few people making posts where they're convinced that the AI is conscious. That's never really been something I've thought about much since I know a little about how it works, but I could totally see how someone who didn't have as much context for how GPT-3 works could see it as some sort of sentience. https://community.openai.com/t/a-conversation-with-alec-a-conscious-ai/8209 https://community.openai.com/t/a-conversation-with-alec-a-co... https://community.openai.com/t/creepy-ai-behavior/10195 https://community.openai.com/t/creepy-ai-behavior/10195 https://community.openai.com/t/where-to-watch-what-the-ai-wants-to-show-us/8462 https://community.openai.com/t/where-to-watch-what-the-ai-wa...
- marcodiego 5y ago
  Long time ago I wrote a small program. It simulated a simple world with creatures and food. Creatures had "energy" which was lost when they moved, when energy was low, they "looked for food close by" to feed. When energy was high, they "looked for a suitable partner close by" to reproduce. When they reached food, they gained energy, when they reached a "suitable partner" they turned in 3 creatures with combined energy equally distributed among them. To "look for", at each iteration, the creature randomly picked a test-target. If it had no current-target, the test-target was turned into its new current-target. If it had a current-target which was more distant than the test-target, then the test-target was copied to the current-target for the creature. Creatures had a "threshold". When its energy was above the threshold, it entered "reproduction mode"; when its energy was below the threshold, it entered feed mode. A "suitable partner" was any other creature which was also in "reproduction mode". When they "reproduced" the new creature threshold was an average of the threshold of its parents plus a small random number. It also had three settings: number of new generated creatures per unit of time, number of new food packs per unit of time and number of iterations per unit of time. It had a very "real behavior". After a few minutes running, I usually set the "number of new generated creatures per unit of time" to 0 and watched creatures look for food and reproduction. Set a small number of food packs and watched famine, set it high and saw creatures thrive... But, whenever it was the time to close the program, I had a small feeling. I didn't like stopping it. It was like killing an entire fishbowl.
  - andai 5y ago
    I guess you didn't implement save/load? :) That's super cool, did you ever put it online?
    - marcodiego 5y ago
      Didn't implement save. It was the late 90's and eventually lost the HD. Never put it online. Don't judge me, I did in Delphi (C++ Builder, actually). Simple and pleasurable to use IDE. I've been thinking about re-doing it in processing or p5, but never cared enough. It wouldn't be too much work though. Certainly a good exercise to learn a new language.
jquery 5y ago
Imho, not a matter of "if" but "when". I'm convinced that it will be a future civil rights battle, with young people largely on the "AI has rights" side and old people largely on the "AI has no rights" side.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  Then you grossly misunderstand how far along AI is. AGI is not even a remote possibility with current techniques and implementations (and I would contest, entirely impossible with digital logic). It's just massive amount of statistics that were computationally impossible given available hardware until recently. We don't have a baseline understanding of consciousness or intuition to a degree that we could even begin to replicate it.
  - rurp 5y ago
    While true, what you're saying is totally tangential to whether or not large numbers of people will treat AIs like they're conscious. Expecting masses of people to defer to subject matter experts, contrary to what their feelings tell them, isn't a bet I would have much confidence in given the current climate.
    - moffkalast 5y ago
      The concept of rights also makes no sense to a machine. The main reason rights are a thing are to prevent pain and suffering, which unless specifically implemented no AGI will likely have.
  - progforlyfe 5y ago
    I agree with that sentiment. Also I would estimate that AI would eliminate humans long before it would or could reach the level of what humans are. So we wouldn't exist to see such a world.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      > AI would eliminate humans long before it would or could reach the level of what humans are You think that an artificial agent with less than human level intelligence could destroy humanity? Then why hasn't a deranged human (or animal) already done so?

schleck8 5y ago

I tried this with the new open source GPT NeoX 20B model on GooseAI playground and it suceeded too: Q: Can here you here still here understand here what here I here am here asking here if here I here put here words here in here between? A: Yes. Q: What was the word that I put in between? A: The word was "here." It's capable of other languages as well, although not quite as fluent. Q: Kannst du auch Deutsch sprechen? Falls ja, was ist dein Lieblingswort? A: Ja, ich kann Deutsch sprechen. Mein Lieblingswort ist: "Wir sind die Weltmeister!"

throwanem 5y ago
This makes me wonder about a variant of the Turing test that I don't think I've seen explored. How would a conversational AI prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is an AI?
- pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
  You mean that it is intelligent? Surely it’s trivial to prove you’re a computer by solving some math real fast. “Can you prove you’re a machine?” – “Sure, check this out:” runs Doom The intelligent part would be figuring out that you want it to drop the pretense. Although if it is intelligent enough, it might choose not to.
  - throwanem 5y ago
    I'm thinking in terms of a purely conversational interaction via text, akin to Turing's original formulation or the "AI box" elaboration, so Doom isn't really on the table - and in any case, how does it prove that it isn't a human running GZDoom via OBS or something? Similarly, the fast math thing seems like it could be faked by a human with an equation solver or something. I suppose the general formulation I'm groping toward here is the inverse of Turing's: if we assume a conversation in which one's interlocutor may be either a human or an AI capable of conversing in a way that's indistinguishable from human, how would the interlocutor unambiguously distinguish itself as not human?
    - 5y ago

guantanamo_bob 5y ago

Must :clap: have :clap: learned :clap: that :clap: from :clap: all :clap: the :clap: clapping :clap: that :clap: goes :clap: on :clap:.

moffkalast 5y ago
But does GPT-3 know what based is based on? Or why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

andreyk 5y ago

Might actually not be a huge feat given the transformer architecture and it's attention component - here was not that related to the rest of the sentence. Still, quite cool...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]