3 ms·
That assumption does seem pretty unlikely a priori. After all, the OpenAI folks added RLHF to GPT-3, presumably did some testing, and then opened it to the pub
by amalcon 4y ago
That assumption does seem pretty unlikely a priori. After all, the OpenAI folks added RLHF to GPT-3, presumably did some testing, and then opened it to the public. If the testing noticed more antisocial behavior after adding RLHF, presumably that would not have been the version they opened up.
One might argue that the model was able to successfully hide the antisocial behavior from the testers, but that seems unlikely for a long list of reasons.
- skybrian 4y agoWhy do you think it's unlikely? Internal testing with a few alpha testers and some automated testing is useful, but lots of bugs are only found in wider testing or in production. Chatbot conversations are open-ended, so it's not surprising to me that when you get tens or hundreds of thousands of people doing testing then they're going to find more weird behaviors, particularly since they're actively trying to "break" it.
- amalcon 4y agoI mean, sure, it's going to expose more weird behaviors with a wider audience looking at it. The core problem is that it's so easy to get ChatGPT to start exhibiting weird behaviors that it would be surprising if the testers just never ran into them. Remember, the internal testing is actively trying to break things too, and they can use knowledge of the internals and past versions to do so. Also, the assumption I find dubious is that RLHF results in more antisocial behavior than not using it. Both versions would have been tested, so OpenAI would've had a baseline from testing the prior version with equal or fewer resources. Equal or greater rigor, and you'd expect them to open it up only if they found fewer flaws.