3 ms·

Ironic that you are discussing this in a thread about how orgs can get huge enough that nobody really understands why there are so many people. It would most l

Ironic that you are discussing this in a thread about how orgs can get huge enough that nobody really understands why there are so many people. It would most likely take several teams to push out what you are asking for. You’d need lawyers, support staff, engineers to create a platform other teams can hook into in order to fulfill these requests, you’d need ways to strip training data of any PII, you’d need a team to write the front end for support staff and the external users. Etc… that’s a non trivial amount of headcount!

BoorishBears 4y ago
I don't get how you can miss the forest for the trees this badly. You're raving about how much work it would be to build in introspectability into a system that has an extremely large effect on the population, as if that's not justified by the fact we'd be gaining introspectability into a system that has an extremely large effect on the population You're also overselling it, no one is saying we need every single api request to fetch a feed to also hit some endpoint stating "this is why post id X was shown to user Y". ML again, can be introspected at a higher level than all this seems to imply. OpenAI can't tell you exactly why ChatGPT gives a specific string of text but they can (and have) shown how it works at a high level: https://openai.com/blog/instruction-following/ https://openai.com/blog/instruction-following/ You seem to be pushing the line that, because it's difficult to explain why these systems work how they do, and the responsibility is spread so far and wide, we shouldn't bother. It's the literal opposite: it's exactly why its so needed. Even internally these things should be wanted, and I'd be truly shocked if finely tuned advertising giants don't already have a high degree of these understandings in poorly named suborgs that no one pays much attention to (not because cloak and daggers, but because engineers tend to focus on more glamourous things than "introspection").

BoorishBears 4y ago

I don't get how you can miss the forest for the trees this badly. You're raving about how much work it would be to build in introspectability into a system that has an extremely large effect on the population, as if that's not justified by the fact we'd be gaining introspectability into a system that has an extremely large effect on the population You're also overselling it, no one is saying we need every single api request to fetch a feed to also hit some endpoint stating "this is why post id X was shown to user Y". ML again, can be introspected at a higher level than all this seems to imply. OpenAI can't tell you exactly why ChatGPT gives a specific string of text but they can (and have) shown how it works at a high level: https://openai.com/blog/instruction-following/ https://openai.com/blog/instruction-following/ You seem to be pushing the line that, because it's difficult to explain why these systems work how they do, and the responsibility is spread so far and wide, we shouldn't bother. It's the literal opposite: it's exactly why its so needed. Even internally these things should be wanted, and I'd be truly shocked if finely tuned advertising giants don't already have a high degree of these understandings in poorly named suborgs that no one pays much attention to (not because cloak and daggers, but because engineers tend to focus on more glamourous things than "introspection").