4 ms·

But do we know if lamda is not continously trained on its inputs? Moreover do we really know that continuous learning as opposed to discrete learning (i would a

But do we know if lamda is not continously trained on its inputs? Moreover do we really know that continuous learning as opposed to discrete learning (i would assume lamda being retrained on conversations quite often) is a precondition to sentience? I'm not saying that I believe the engineer has encountered a general AI, but I think dismissing his claim as ridiculous based on the little information we have and Google (who has a vested interest to the opposite) statementa, is premature. I also think describing lamda as "just a chat bot" seems to be an oversimplification, it seems to more be a hive of different chatbots from the description.

Aeolun 4y ago
If it isn’t turned ‘on’ all the time (e.g. has a persistent memory), then I find it hard to describe it as sentience. Or at least, if we turn a sentience on/off for every individual answer, I’d consider it borderline torture.
tsimionescu 4y ago
Based on what they published about it [0], LaMDA is trained on a gigantic corpus of text to do basic text prediction, and then fine-tuned to generate responses to dialog, with additional care to (1) evaluate the safety/quality of responses it gives (e.g. to avoid recommending someone commits suicide, as previous ML chatbots sometimes did) and (2) to retrieve facts directly from external systems, so it is less likely to produce random realistic-sounding information. Re-training a model of this size probably takes years of CPU-time, it's not a task that can be done often, so I very much doubt re-training it on the dialog produced so far would be a part of operating it. Even if such re-training were done, I very much doubt it would result in the model knowing who a particular user it talked to before was, once the context was lost. This is precisely why they need to rely on external fact data-bases to get correctness: even though the model is trained on thousands of history books, it doesn't remember them in the way we do - to it, the phrase "Napoleon Bonaparte fought at Waterloo" is probably only mildly more likely than "Abraham Lincoln fought at Waterloo" is. [0] https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/01/lamda-towards-safe-grounded-and-high.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/01/lamda-towards-safe-grounde...
chinchilla2020 4y ago
> I'm not saying that I believe the engineer has encountered a general AI, but I think dismissing his claim as ridiculous based on the little information we have and Google (who has a vested interest to the opposite) statementa, is premature. The burden of proof is on the claimant in this case. AI has been overhyped to death and we get articles about AI becoming sentient almost weekly from the major news sources. At this point I think we should be free to dismiss any claims that do not have serious evidence behind them. We have provided with ~15 cherry-picked lines from this AI. That is pretty scant evidence that a revolutionary generalized AI has been built.

Aeolun 4y ago

If it isn’t turned ‘on’ all the time (e.g. has a persistent memory), then I find it hard to describe it as sentience. Or at least, if we turn a sentience on/off for every individual answer, I’d consider it borderline torture.

tsimionescu 4y ago

Based on what they published about it [0], LaMDA is trained on a gigantic corpus of text to do basic text prediction, and then fine-tuned to generate responses to dialog, with additional care to (1) evaluate the safety/quality of responses it gives (e.g. to avoid recommending someone commits suicide, as previous ML chatbots sometimes did) and (2) to retrieve facts directly from external systems, so it is less likely to produce random realistic-sounding information. Re-training a model of this size probably takes years of CPU-time, it's not a task that can be done often, so I very much doubt re-training it on the dialog produced so far would be a part of operating it. Even if such re-training were done, I very much doubt it would result in the model knowing who a particular user it talked to before was, once the context was lost. This is precisely why they need to rely on external fact data-bases to get correctness: even though the model is trained on thousands of history books, it doesn't remember them in the way we do - to it, the phrase "Napoleon Bonaparte fought at Waterloo" is probably only mildly more likely than "Abraham Lincoln fought at Waterloo" is. [0] https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/01/lamda-towards-safe-grounded-and-high.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/01/lamda-towards-safe-grounde...

chinchilla2020 4y ago

> I'm not saying that I believe the engineer has encountered a general AI, but I think dismissing his claim as ridiculous based on the little information we have and Google (who has a vested interest to the opposite) statementa, is premature. The burden of proof is on the claimant in this case. AI has been overhyped to death and we get articles about AI becoming sentient almost weekly from the major news sources. At this point I think we should be free to dismiss any claims that do not have serious evidence behind them. We have provided with ~15 cherry-picked lines from this AI. That is pretty scant evidence that a revolutionary generalized AI has been built.