4 ms·

I studied machine learning at NYU, and from interacting with Yann LeCun, I can say he’s actually a nice guy. Yes, his tweet is grumpy. I still feel as if the im

I studied machine learning at NYU, and from interacting with Yann LeCun, I can say he’s actually a nice guy. Yes, his tweet is grumpy. I still feel as if the implication that Galactica should have been taken down was the worse thing happening here. I read the MIT Technology Review article, and I was asking myself “what is an example of Galactica making a mistake?” The article could easily have quoted a specific prompt, but doesn’t. It says the model makes mistakes in terms of understanding what’s real/correct or not, but the only concrete example I see in the article is that the model will write about the history of bears in space with the implication that it’s making things up (and I believe the model does make such mistakes). I don’t think it’s a good article because it’s heavy on quoting people who don’t like the work and light on concrete details. Does the imperfection of a language model really mean the model should not exist? This seems to be what some critics are aiming for.

opportune 4y ago
It is the same problem as with all the AI models that are “racist” (note some are actually racist or insensitive): the AI model just does what it’s told, doesn’t know right from wrong, and amplifies fake and actual differences in ways that make us uncomfortable. So you can get an AI model that hasn’t been hardened against these attacks to write a paper on why <racist thing> or create an image depicting <racist or porny thing> and it just does it. Because the model is just an input:output device and doesn’t have the “wait maybe I shouldn’t do that because it’s bad” feature. And while teen and young 20 something males will get a huge laugh out of posting screenshots of it, the journalist crowd will freak out and start calling the model, researchers, and company racist. Personally I have played with large language models and the chutzpah with which they will lie and make things up is indeed astounding (they do a good job at making them sound believable, and lie with utter seriousness and confidence). So I can see where the controversy comes from, although I agree with the other commenters that the researchers should be able to put up a bit fat disclaimer about it
jrpt 4y ago
I saw examples of people using it to generate scientific-sounding fake studies like: the benefits of eating glass, or promoting antisemitism. That being said, I am very partial to the AI researchers here who feel like their cool demo has to be taken down because some people were misusing it. It's an unfair high standard they're holding AI demos to, compared with other technologies. It's analogous to asking Alexander Graham Bell to shut down an early telephone prototype because some jerks were using it to discuss antisemitic conspiracies.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tylerneylon 4y ago
  I agree that the model does make mistakes. Your examples sound realistic, and I hope we make more progress to improve on models that can propagate stereotypes and similarly negative aspects that can arise in training data. I had meant to criticize the journalism, versus saying the mistakes don't exist.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lambdatronics 4y ago
“A technology that works 70% of the time is a bad one.” https://missiveapp.com/blog/life-and-death-of-read-tracking https://missiveapp.com/blog/life-and-death-of-read-tracking

opportune 4y ago

It is the same problem as with all the AI models that are “racist” (note some are actually racist or insensitive): the AI model just does what it’s told, doesn’t know right from wrong, and amplifies fake and actual differences in ways that make us uncomfortable. So you can get an AI model that hasn’t been hardened against these attacks to write a paper on why <racist thing> or create an image depicting <racist or porny thing> and it just does it. Because the model is just an input:output device and doesn’t have the “wait maybe I shouldn’t do that because it’s bad” feature. And while teen and young 20 something males will get a huge laugh out of posting screenshots of it, the journalist crowd will freak out and start calling the model, researchers, and company racist. Personally I have played with large language models and the chutzpah with which they will lie and make things up is indeed astounding (they do a good job at making them sound believable, and lie with utter seriousness and confidence). So I can see where the controversy comes from, although I agree with the other commenters that the researchers should be able to put up a bit fat disclaimer about it

jrpt 4y ago

I saw examples of people using it to generate scientific-sounding fake studies like: the benefits of eating glass, or promoting antisemitism. That being said, I am very partial to the AI researchers here who feel like their cool demo has to be taken down because some people were misusing it. It's an unfair high standard they're holding AI demos to, compared with other technologies. It's analogous to asking Alexander Graham Bell to shut down an early telephone prototype because some jerks were using it to discuss antisemitic conspiracies.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tylerneylon 4y ago
I agree that the model does make mistakes. Your examples sound realistic, and I hope we make more progress to improve on models that can propagate stereotypes and similarly negative aspects that can arise in training data. I had meant to criticize the journalism, versus saying the mistakes don't exist.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lambdatronics 4y ago

“A technology that works 70% of the time is a bad one.” https://missiveapp.com/blog/life-and-death-of-read-tracking https://missiveapp.com/blog/life-and-death-of-read-tracking