4 ms·

I don't think ChatGPT's responses qualify as evidence that OpenAI staff are writing responses. The model is just predicting what the most likely response to you

I don't think ChatGPT's responses qualify as evidence that OpenAI staff are writing responses. The model is just predicting what the most likely response to your prompt is based on its training data, but that data doesn't necessarily have the answer to your question of if OpenAI staff are writing responses, and even if it does, ChatGPT is not necessarily responding accurately based on that information.

elil17 4y ago
I think the author knows this. In fact, many of his questions seem to be trying to lead the AI to say that it's answers are written by humans. I think this should be taken down from HN, it's extremely misleading to anyone who might mistakenly believe that ChatGPT has self-knowledge.
- mustacheemperor 4y ago
  The author has also made a significant factual error in another article that he cites as additional evidence in this one. >Previously, I pointed out aspects of ChatGPT that implied humans were helping craft the chatbot’s responses. He links as a source an article where he gets ChatGPT to recall a detail from earlier in the current conversation, claims that is not a capability of ChatGPT, and insists that means there is a human editor involved. But that is a capability of ChatGPT. It has limited local recall, with a small token budget, but it absolutely will remember the name of the fake company the author made up in their first question. That entire article lambasting the tech is based on a completely incorrect assumption, declared by the author with absolute confidence. Edit: The author is not on twitter, there's no comment section or contact information provided. There's no means provided to even redress this analysis published on fallacious logic.
  - elil17 4y ago
    That's a good point. Perhaps the author genuinely does not understand that what he is writing is not true.
keithwhor 4y ago
The most damning evidence that ChatGPT has passed the Turing test with flying colors is that the author relies on its testimony about itself.
- joshka 4y ago
  It's not really - especially given that the author is aware that ChatGPT actually is a computer. The Turing test relies on either the tester not knowing a computer is involved or not knowing which of two parties is a computer. Ironically, one of the easiest thing to spot that marks ChatGPT's responses as inhuman is its confidence in reporting something as factual and then when contradicted the way that it reports the opposite. In my experience, humans tend to put up more of a fight to defend their perspectives even when they are wrong. This just comes down to the author being loose with their conclusions. It's unclear to me whether this is intentionally hyperbolic or satirical, or whether the author's claims are their actual beliefs. I'd lean towards the first explanation based on Eric Holloway's bio. But this is the real kicker that I'd disagree with: > "Now, I have an explicit admission from the chatbot" No, you have a language model's prediction of what would complete a conversation where you presented an idea and the model has sufficient data to write sentences that would conform to the idea rather than contradicting it. Given knowledge that this is how the responses work, inferring that the model is reporting any sort of accurate information must be inherently treated as suspect. It's reasonably possible to lead the model down a path of conversation where the opposite idea is presented (that humans are not in the loop). That this is so indicates that this article is incorrect in it's stated conclusion (again assuming that it's not satire).
notahacker 4y ago
Indeed ChatGPT waffling and giving the impression there are humans in the loop is pretty good evidence it's just a brainless bot replying. If there were humans responding to his queries, they'd deny everything! (Although FWIW it wouldn't surprise me if some of the "hall monitor" responses were pre written strings the model was tweaked to heavily favour using in response to certain prompts...)
collyw 4y ago
4chan regularly exposes it, by trying to get it to write politically incorrect statements.

elil17 4y ago

I think the author knows this. In fact, many of his questions seem to be trying to lead the AI to say that it's answers are written by humans. I think this should be taken down from HN, it's extremely misleading to anyone who might mistakenly believe that ChatGPT has self-knowledge.

mustacheemperor 4y ago
The author has also made a significant factual error in another article that he cites as additional evidence in this one. >Previously, I pointed out aspects of ChatGPT that implied humans were helping craft the chatbot’s responses. He links as a source an article where he gets ChatGPT to recall a detail from earlier in the current conversation, claims that is not a capability of ChatGPT, and insists that means there is a human editor involved. But that is a capability of ChatGPT. It has limited local recall, with a small token budget, but it absolutely will remember the name of the fake company the author made up in their first question. That entire article lambasting the tech is based on a completely incorrect assumption, declared by the author with absolute confidence. Edit: The author is not on twitter, there's no comment section or contact information provided. There's no means provided to even redress this analysis published on fallacious logic.
- elil17 4y ago
  That's a good point. Perhaps the author genuinely does not understand that what he is writing is not true.

keithwhor 4y ago

The most damning evidence that ChatGPT has passed the Turing test with flying colors is that the author relies on its testimony about itself.

joshka 4y ago
It's not really - especially given that the author is aware that ChatGPT actually is a computer. The Turing test relies on either the tester not knowing a computer is involved or not knowing which of two parties is a computer. Ironically, one of the easiest thing to spot that marks ChatGPT's responses as inhuman is its confidence in reporting something as factual and then when contradicted the way that it reports the opposite. In my experience, humans tend to put up more of a fight to defend their perspectives even when they are wrong. This just comes down to the author being loose with their conclusions. It's unclear to me whether this is intentionally hyperbolic or satirical, or whether the author's claims are their actual beliefs. I'd lean towards the first explanation based on Eric Holloway's bio. But this is the real kicker that I'd disagree with: > "Now, I have an explicit admission from the chatbot" No, you have a language model's prediction of what would complete a conversation where you presented an idea and the model has sufficient data to write sentences that would conform to the idea rather than contradicting it. Given knowledge that this is how the responses work, inferring that the model is reporting any sort of accurate information must be inherently treated as suspect. It's reasonably possible to lead the model down a path of conversation where the opposite idea is presented (that humans are not in the loop). That this is so indicates that this article is incorrect in it's stated conclusion (again assuming that it's not satire).

notahacker 4y ago

Indeed ChatGPT waffling and giving the impression there are humans in the loop is pretty good evidence it's just a brainless bot replying. If there were humans responding to his queries, they'd deny everything! (Although FWIW it wouldn't surprise me if some of the "hall monitor" responses were pre written strings the model was tweaked to heavily favour using in response to certain prompts...)

collyw 4y ago

4chan regularly exposes it, by trying to get it to write politically incorrect statements.