6 ms·

> Remember Microsoft's Tay? Ah, right, it was shut within days because it quickly became an asshole. If we consider the context, which is not something that po

> Remember Microsoft's Tay? Ah, right, it was shut within days because it quickly became an asshole. If we consider the context, which is not something that posts on twitter under Microsoft's brand name, but something you communicate with in private. Who exactly are you worried about here, the person who will prospectively coerce the language model into being an asshole? If they don't want to do that, they could just not do that. If I make ChatGPT say something egregious, and post that on Twitter or Facebook, I'm posting it, and I'm liable, just as I would be liable if I used a word processor with spell checking to make text and post it on Twitter or Facebook. > Without ethics, you'll likely always end up with a 4chan-bot instead of whatever you intended. If I ask it to explain quantum physics to me in the style of Donald Trump because it is funny, and it does it (as ChatGPT used to do), who exactly is being harmed and under what system of ethics, because as you may know, ethics is not objective or universal.

_flux 4y ago
> If I make ChatGPT say something egregious, and post that on Twitter or Facebook, I'm posting it, and I'm liable, just as I would be liable if I used a word processor with spell checking to make text and post it on Twitter or Facebook. While arguably that would be the case, practically it might be a different look for the company whose algorithm generated the text in the first place—and from the audience, which might think that it somehow represents the viewpoint of the company. I mean surely you have noticed that social media can get stirred up for no fundamentally sound reasons.
- flanked-evergl 4y ago
  > I mean surely you have noticed that social media can get stirred up for no fundamentally sound reasons. Sure, but therein lies the problem, you can't really use reasoning, sound or otherwise, to insulate yourself from fundamentally unsound reasoning. Facebook was responsible for January 6 more than the upstarts that got kicked off AWS, but Facebook had no real negative consequences from their involvement. I can literally post a screenshot from ChatGPT which shows anything, and given the complexity of how it works (take DAN for example), it is really difficult to dispute authenticity. If this can bring down ChatGPT then OpenAI should just close down now. In an ideal world, ChatGPT would be value neutral, and fact positive, so if I ask it about fact, it should give me to the best of its rather poor ability a descriptive statement about fact, if I ask it about values, it should give me a descriptive claims about values (e.g. most value systems sees such act as wrong or right), not mask a prescriptive claim as a descriptive claim (e.g. it is wrong or right). If I ask it to write fictional prose, then it should write what I ask it. If I ask it to write factual prose, it should similarly do what I ask it. I don't really see where this falls apart or turn into 4chan.
viraptor 4y ago
> the person who will prospectively coerce the language model into being an asshole? The language models are trained on internet content already. If you ignore ethics, it means you're feeding it bias and racism along with everything else. Chatgpt is not blatant about it normally but I'm sure you've seen examples like "write a function that takes a race argument and returns length of prison sentence" where it obviously leaks through. I'm sure there are some non-obvious ways it leaks in other answers too. Sometimes subtle ways you will not realise are biased and will not want to take liability for.
- decremental 4y ago
  I'm sure by now there is enough content on the internet that says racism is bad. It's got to outnumber racist things said online by like a million to one. Why not just let the model learn what it learns? If people care so much about racism then that should reflect naturally in the model.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    Models don't learn to reason about things. They learn to rehash things in new context. If you train the model on both racist and anti-racist content, you'll get it repeating both racist and anti-racist ideas.

_flux 4y ago

> If I make ChatGPT say something egregious, and post that on Twitter or Facebook, I'm posting it, and I'm liable, just as I would be liable if I used a word processor with spell checking to make text and post it on Twitter or Facebook. While arguably that would be the case, practically it might be a different look for the company whose algorithm generated the text in the first place—and from the audience, which might think that it somehow represents the viewpoint of the company. I mean surely you have noticed that social media can get stirred up for no fundamentally sound reasons.

flanked-evergl 4y ago
> I mean surely you have noticed that social media can get stirred up for no fundamentally sound reasons. Sure, but therein lies the problem, you can't really use reasoning, sound or otherwise, to insulate yourself from fundamentally unsound reasoning. Facebook was responsible for January 6 more than the upstarts that got kicked off AWS, but Facebook had no real negative consequences from their involvement. I can literally post a screenshot from ChatGPT which shows anything, and given the complexity of how it works (take DAN for example), it is really difficult to dispute authenticity. If this can bring down ChatGPT then OpenAI should just close down now. In an ideal world, ChatGPT would be value neutral, and fact positive, so if I ask it about fact, it should give me to the best of its rather poor ability a descriptive statement about fact, if I ask it about values, it should give me a descriptive claims about values (e.g. most value systems sees such act as wrong or right), not mask a prescriptive claim as a descriptive claim (e.g. it is wrong or right). If I ask it to write fictional prose, then it should write what I ask it. If I ask it to write factual prose, it should similarly do what I ask it. I don't really see where this falls apart or turn into 4chan.

viraptor 4y ago

> the person who will prospectively coerce the language model into being an asshole? The language models are trained on internet content already. If you ignore ethics, it means you're feeding it bias and racism along with everything else. Chatgpt is not blatant about it normally but I'm sure you've seen examples like "write a function that takes a race argument and returns length of prison sentence" where it obviously leaks through. I'm sure there are some non-obvious ways it leaks in other answers too. Sometimes subtle ways you will not realise are biased and will not want to take liability for.

decremental 4y ago
I'm sure by now there is enough content on the internet that says racism is bad. It's got to outnumber racist things said online by like a million to one. Why not just let the model learn what it learns? If people care so much about racism then that should reflect naturally in the model.
- viraptor 4y ago
  Models don't learn to reason about things. They learn to rehash things in new context. If you train the model on both racist and anti-racist content, you'll get it repeating both racist and anti-racist ideas.