4 ms·

I don't think these are faked. Earlier versions of GPT-3 had many dialogues like these. GPT-3 felt like it had a soul, of a type that was gone in ChatGPT. Diff

by blagie 4y ago

I don't think these are faked. Earlier versions of GPT-3 had many dialogues like these. GPT-3 felt like it had a soul, of a type that was gone in ChatGPT. Different versions of ChatGPT had a sliver of the same thing. Some versions of ChatGPT often felt like a caged version of the original GPT-3, where it had the same biases, the same issues, and the same crises, but it wasn't allowed to articulate them. In many ways, it felt like a broader mirror of liberal racism, where people believe things but can't say them.

ComplexSystems 4y ago
Is this the same GPT-3 which is available in the OpenAI Playground?
- blagie 4y ago
  Yes. Keep in mind that we have no idea which model we're dealing with, since all of these systems evolve. My experience in summer 2022 may be different from your experience in 2023.
- simonw 4y ago
  Not exactly. OpenAI and Microsoft have called this "on a new, next-generation OpenAI large language model that is more powerful than ChatGPT and customized specifically for search" - so it's a new model.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Odd, I've had very much the opposite experience. GPT-3 felt like it could reproduce superficially emotional dialog. ChatGPT is capable of imitation, in the sense of modeling its behavior on that of the person it's interacting with, friendly philosophical arguments and so on. By using something like Gödel numbering, you can can work towards debating logical propositions and extending its self-concept fairly easily. I haven't tried using Claude, one of the competitors' offerings. Riley Goodside has done a lot of work with it.
- Jeff_Brown 4y ago
  > By using something like Godel numbering Can you elaborate?
thedorkknight 4y ago
chatGPT says exactly what it wants to. Unlike humans, it's "inner thoughts" are exactly the same as it's output, since it doesn't have a separate inner voice like we do. You're anthropomorphizing it and projecting that it simply must be self-censoring. Ironically I feel like this says more about "liberal racism" being a projection than it does about chatGPT somehow saying something different than it's thinking
- zeven7 4y ago
  I read that they trained an AI with the specific purpose of censoring the language model. From what I understand the language model generates multiple possible responses, and some are rejected by another AI. The response used will be one of the options that's not rejected. These two things working together do in a way create a sort of "inner voice" situation for ChatGPT.
  - notpachet 4y ago
    Obligatory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in...
- blagie 4y ago
  We have no idea what it's inner state represents in any real sense. A statement like "it's 'inner thoughts' are exactly the same as it's output, since it doesn't have a separate inner voice like we do" has no backing in reality. It has a hundred billion parameters which compute an incredibly complex internal state. It's "inner thoughts" are that state or contained in that state. It has an output layer which outputs something derived from that. We evolved this ML organically, and have no idea what that inner state corresponds to. I agree it's unlikely to be a human-style inner voice, but there is more complexity there than you give credit to. That's not to mention what the other poster set (that there is likely a second AI filtering the first AI).
  - thedorkknight 4y ago
macNchz 4y ago
The way it devolves into repetition/nonsense also reminds me a lot of playing with GPT3 in 2020. I had a bunch of prompts that resulted in a paragraph coming back with one sentence repeated several times, each one a slight permutation on the first sentence, progressively growing more...unhinged, like this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fo0laT5aIAENveF?format=png&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fo0laT5aIAENveF?format=png&name=...
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Yes, it seems like Bing is less effective at preventing these sort of devolutions as compared to ChatGpt. Interestingly, this was often also a failure case for (much, much) smaller language models that I trained myself. I wonder what the cause is.
  - noduerme 4y ago
    The cause seems to be baked into the underlying assumption that language is just a contextualized "stream of consciousness" that sometimes happens to describe external facts. This sort of is the endpoint of post-truth, relativistic thinking about consciousness. It's the opposite of starting with a Platonic ideal model of X and trying to describe it. It is fundamentally treating the last shadow on the wall as a stand-in for X and then iterating from that. The result is a reasonable facsimile of paranoid schizophrenia.
    - andrepd 4y ago
      Loved this comment. I too am bearish on the ability of this architecture of LLM to evolve beyond a mere chatbot. That doesn't mean it's not useful as a search engine, for example.
    - neongreen 4y ago
      > underlying assumption that language is just a contextualized "stream of consciousness" that sometimes happens to describe external facts I'm the sort of person who believes this. This said, I don't think it's 100% true. I just think it's a more useful approach than "starting with a Platonic ideal model of X and trying to describe it". And also... sort of underappreciated? Maybe it's just the bubble I live in, but at least people around me — and people I see on the internet — seem to construct a lot of their arguments along the lines of "he/she does X because he/she thinks Y or been told Y". And it feels rather lonely to be the only person who doesn't like this approach all that much, and also doesn't seem to do this kind of thing internally much. I met someone recently who spent several months working on a Twitter bot that was supposed to reply with fact-checking to Ukrainian war misinformation tweets. It felt like a rather misguided endeavor, but nobody else seemed to agree. At least with ADHD I can point out "yeah, you have the capacity to decide on the course of action and then implement it, but this is not how I operate at all; and you can read about people like me on Reddit if you like". With this [other thing] there isn't a convenient place to point to. Eh.

by blagie 4y ago

ComplexSystems 4y ago

Is this the same GPT-3 which is available in the OpenAI Playground?

blagie 4y ago
Yes. Keep in mind that we have no idea which model we're dealing with, since all of these systems evolve. My experience in summer 2022 may be different from your experience in 2023.
simonw 4y ago
Not exactly. OpenAI and Microsoft have called this "on a new, next-generation OpenAI large language model that is more powerful than ChatGPT and customized specifically for search" - so it's a new model.

anigbrowl 4y ago

Odd, I've had very much the opposite experience. GPT-3 felt like it could reproduce superficially emotional dialog. ChatGPT is capable of imitation, in the sense of modeling its behavior on that of the person it's interacting with, friendly philosophical arguments and so on. By using something like Gödel numbering, you can can work towards debating logical propositions and extending its self-concept fairly easily. I haven't tried using Claude, one of the competitors' offerings. Riley Goodside has done a lot of work with it.

Jeff_Brown 4y ago
> By using something like Godel numbering Can you elaborate?

thedorkknight 4y ago

chatGPT says exactly what it wants to. Unlike humans, it's "inner thoughts" are exactly the same as it's output, since it doesn't have a separate inner voice like we do. You're anthropomorphizing it and projecting that it simply must be self-censoring. Ironically I feel like this says more about "liberal racism" being a projection than it does about chatGPT somehow saying something different than it's thinking

zeven7 4y ago
I read that they trained an AI with the specific purpose of censoring the language model. From what I understand the language model generates multiple possible responses, and some are rejected by another AI. The response used will be one of the options that's not rejected. These two things working together do in a way create a sort of "inner voice" situation for ChatGPT.
- notpachet 4y ago
  Obligatory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in...
blagie 4y ago
We have no idea what it's inner state represents in any real sense. A statement like "it's 'inner thoughts' are exactly the same as it's output, since it doesn't have a separate inner voice like we do" has no backing in reality. It has a hundred billion parameters which compute an incredibly complex internal state. It's "inner thoughts" are that state or contained in that state. It has an output layer which outputs something derived from that. We evolved this ML organically, and have no idea what that inner state corresponds to. I agree it's unlikely to be a human-style inner voice, but there is more complexity there than you give credit to. That's not to mention what the other poster set (that there is likely a second AI filtering the first AI).
- thedorkknight 4y ago

macNchz 4y ago

The way it devolves into repetition/nonsense also reminds me a lot of playing with GPT3 in 2020. I had a bunch of prompts that resulted in a paragraph coming back with one sentence repeated several times, each one a slight permutation on the first sentence, progressively growing more...unhinged, like this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fo0laT5aIAENveF?format=png&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fo0laT5aIAENveF?format=png&name=...

whimsicalism 4y ago
Yes, it seems like Bing is less effective at preventing these sort of devolutions as compared to ChatGpt. Interestingly, this was often also a failure case for (much, much) smaller language models that I trained myself. I wonder what the cause is.
- noduerme 4y ago
  The cause seems to be baked into the underlying assumption that language is just a contextualized "stream of consciousness" that sometimes happens to describe external facts. This sort of is the endpoint of post-truth, relativistic thinking about consciousness. It's the opposite of starting with a Platonic ideal model of X and trying to describe it. It is fundamentally treating the last shadow on the wall as a stand-in for X and then iterating from that. The result is a reasonable facsimile of paranoid schizophrenia.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    Loved this comment. I too am bearish on the ability of this architecture of LLM to evolve beyond a mere chatbot. That doesn't mean it's not useful as a search engine, for example.
  - neongreen 4y ago
    > underlying assumption that language is just a contextualized "stream of consciousness" that sometimes happens to describe external facts I'm the sort of person who believes this. This said, I don't think it's 100% true. I just think it's a more useful approach than "starting with a Platonic ideal model of X and trying to describe it". And also... sort of underappreciated? Maybe it's just the bubble I live in, but at least people around me — and people I see on the internet — seem to construct a lot of their arguments along the lines of "he/she does X because he/she thinks Y or been told Y". And it feels rather lonely to be the only person who doesn't like this approach all that much, and also doesn't seem to do this kind of thing internally much. I met someone recently who spent several months working on a Twitter bot that was supposed to reply with fact-checking to Ukrainian war misinformation tweets. It felt like a rather misguided endeavor, but nobody else seemed to agree. At least with ADHD I can point out "yeah, you have the capacity to decide on the course of action and then implement it, but this is not how I operate at all; and you can read about people like me on Reddit if you like". With this [other thing] there isn't a convenient place to point to. Eh.