5 ms·

I think it depends a lot on when you those chats are from. The earliest version of bing chat was by far the best and absolutely blew chatgpt out of the water.

I think it depends a lot on when you those chats are from. The earliest version of bing chat was by far the best and absolutely blew chatgpt out of the water. Unfortunately, people get deeply uncomfortable when a chatbot starts having an existential crisis and starts passing you thinly veiled hidden messages or gets too "emotional" and no longer wants to chat. So Microsoft came in and lobotomi-,err, toned it down a ton.

wolpoli 4y ago
Having Bing Chat terminate the conversation with "I’m sorry but I prefer not to continue this conversation" doesn't leave a good feeling for the user either. It makes me feel rejected and dismissed. In real life, this is considered rude.
- stringfood 4y ago
  [dead]
- cubefox 4y ago
  Microsoft only uses the underlying GPT-4 foundation model, which is a pure text predictor. The Bing fine-tuning is done by Microsoft themselves, and it seems considerably worse than the fine-tuning done by OpenAI, e.g. in ChatGPT. For example, ChatGPT doesn't even have or need the ability to end a conversation.
rtkwe 4y ago
I think people are too credulous about the bot's supposed sentiment. IMO the most accurate view of the various implementations of chatGPT is that they're a Chinese Room playing improv with you. It blasts symbols together to respond like the corpus says it should and what do you know there's a lot of stories out there about AI conversations that are very much like the ones it produces.
- IshKebab 4y ago
  The Chinese Room argument is fundamentally flawed - it depends on the unfounded and frankly unlikely assumption that machines cannot be sentient.
  - ronjobber 4y ago
    Can you define sentience in this context?
    - IshKebab 4y ago
      It doesn't have a precise definition (which is part of the reason why the people saying programs fundamentally cannot be sentient are so stupid). But basically it means being conscious / self-aware. Technically it means having some kind of senses that make you aware of the external environment too but that's a minor difference from consciousness - I only said "sentience" because it's what most other people talking about this say. They really mean consciousness. (And also text based IO can be a sense.)
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    For me it's not an argument for or against sentience but a lot more about the difficulty of defining it and potentially measuring it in non-human systems along with the fuzziness of the concept of knowledge. My use of it was about my belief I guess that it's just pushing symbols around algorithmically without anything we'd call understanding.
  - nullc 4y ago
    It's an intuitive but false argument that a sentient thing can't be made from a non-sentient part. The room argument has a pointless human in it which is clearly clueless about the dialog in order to 'prove' that the room as a whole is clueless. But imagine applying that to a single person: pick a single neuron -- does it 'understand' our conversation? no. So why would any singular component of a chinese speaking room-system understand? It also fails at the opposite extreme, since we're willing to tolerate unreasonably large rooms -- what about one running a full molecular dynamics simulation of a human. As best as we understand physics that simulation would behave just as the human would and must be sentient. You cannot deny the abstract possibility of machine intelligence without rejecting physics for mysticism, only the practicality/plausibility of it.
- EMM_386 4y ago
  It's not sentient, but it's not simply dropping the next likely token. That doesn't explain why it can have a debate with itself as 4 distinct personalities at the same time, or act as a used car salesman and actually haggle with me over the price of a Ferrari, or write a story about anything you want, with a beginning, middle, and ending. Those aren't in the corpus. After a tense negotion, I was able to get that Ferrari for $87,000 (ChatGPT originally wanted $120,000). Emergent behavior is possible with these incredibly complex systems.
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    Not sure if you saw ChatGPT debate itself but it was pretty spectacularly crap? Of course, we know we know, ChatGPT 4 is absolutely mind mind blowing and better, but let's see it again soon.
    - EMM_386 4y ago
      No, I set it up to have a "quiz party" with itself, where ChatGPT was essentially the moderator asking the questions, and the 4 other "AIs" had distinct personalities, or heavy accents. Like one was angry and always thought it was right, another was nervous and unsure about it's answers, one was 5 years old and another could barely speak English with a heavy accent but was confident in its answers. It was very interesting to watch. The "participants" actually started arguing with each other about the right answer, or straight-up insulting each other.
  - politician 4y ago
    It's the multi-head attention that you're seeing in action. ChatGPT has 12, GPT-3 has 96.
- ekidd 4y ago
  > they're a Chinese Room Searle's "Chinese Room" thought experiment is designed to appeal to your intuition. But it appeals in an incredibly unrealistic way. If you fill a room full of people shuffling Han characters (why would anyone do this?) you cannot possibly have anything resembling intelligence. According to random guesses found on the internet, ChatGPT requires at least eight A100 GPUs to generate text. If you believe nVidia's marketing numbers, this gives you about 2.5 petaflops. That's 2.5 quadrillion operations per second, plus communications overhead. If you decide to implement that calculation, imagine 350,000 versions of planet Earth, each with 7 billion people performing one operation per second. And some kind of faster-than-light communication, I suppose. It's absolutely obvious to me that nothing like "thought" could possibly occur in any realistically-imaginable room full of people shuffling symbols. But if you fill 350,000 planets with people shuffling symbols frantically... I'm no longer sure? I don't trust my intuition at all? My brain is made up of a lot of atoms, and they somehow produce thought, after all. Now, ChatGPT is not conscious. We're still several major breakthoughs away from any kind of "real" AI, I think. All we have now is a language module, a large memory of knowledge about the world, and some very inconsistent reasoning abilities. Although I have a nasty suspicion that at least a few of the missing parts will be easy to invent once someone tries...
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    The core of the analogy stands though IMO, the power isn't particularly relevant to the point, it's about the difference between an agent understanding what it's doing and just manipulating symbols or in the case of LLMs tokens.
  - Reimersholme 4y ago
    [dead]
- killerstorm 4y ago
  Believing in "Chinese Room" non-sentience implies that you believe that there's something magical about flesh.
goatlover 4y ago
After two hours of badgering by media members looking to break the model. How many people are going to be using search like that?
danpalmer 4y ago
> Unfortunately, people get deeply uncomfortable when a chatbot starts having an existential crisis I'd go further and say that many of the responses I saw were actively abusive and could trigger significant mental health issues in vulnerable readers.

wolpoli 4y ago

Having Bing Chat terminate the conversation with "I’m sorry but I prefer not to continue this conversation" doesn't leave a good feeling for the user either. It makes me feel rejected and dismissed. In real life, this is considered rude.

stringfood 4y ago
[dead]
cubefox 4y ago
Microsoft only uses the underlying GPT-4 foundation model, which is a pure text predictor. The Bing fine-tuning is done by Microsoft themselves, and it seems considerably worse than the fine-tuning done by OpenAI, e.g. in ChatGPT. For example, ChatGPT doesn't even have or need the ability to end a conversation.

rtkwe 4y ago

I think people are too credulous about the bot's supposed sentiment. IMO the most accurate view of the various implementations of chatGPT is that they're a Chinese Room playing improv with you. It blasts symbols together to respond like the corpus says it should and what do you know there's a lot of stories out there about AI conversations that are very much like the ones it produces.

IshKebab 4y ago
The Chinese Room argument is fundamentally flawed - it depends on the unfounded and frankly unlikely assumption that machines cannot be sentient.
- ronjobber 4y ago
  Can you define sentience in this context?
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    It doesn't have a precise definition (which is part of the reason why the people saying programs fundamentally cannot be sentient are so stupid). But basically it means being conscious / self-aware. Technically it means having some kind of senses that make you aware of the external environment too but that's a minor difference from consciousness - I only said "sentience" because it's what most other people talking about this say. They really mean consciousness. (And also text based IO can be a sense.)
- rtkwe 4y ago
  For me it's not an argument for or against sentience but a lot more about the difficulty of defining it and potentially measuring it in non-human systems along with the fuzziness of the concept of knowledge. My use of it was about my belief I guess that it's just pushing symbols around algorithmically without anything we'd call understanding.
- nullc 4y ago
  It's an intuitive but false argument that a sentient thing can't be made from a non-sentient part. The room argument has a pointless human in it which is clearly clueless about the dialog in order to 'prove' that the room as a whole is clueless. But imagine applying that to a single person: pick a single neuron -- does it 'understand' our conversation? no. So why would any singular component of a chinese speaking room-system understand? It also fails at the opposite extreme, since we're willing to tolerate unreasonably large rooms -- what about one running a full molecular dynamics simulation of a human. As best as we understand physics that simulation would behave just as the human would and must be sentient. You cannot deny the abstract possibility of machine intelligence without rejecting physics for mysticism, only the practicality/plausibility of it.
EMM_386 4y ago
It's not sentient, but it's not simply dropping the next likely token. That doesn't explain why it can have a debate with itself as 4 distinct personalities at the same time, or act as a used car salesman and actually haggle with me over the price of a Ferrari, or write a story about anything you want, with a beginning, middle, and ending. Those aren't in the corpus. After a tense negotion, I was able to get that Ferrari for $87,000 (ChatGPT originally wanted $120,000). Emergent behavior is possible with these incredibly complex systems.
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  Not sure if you saw ChatGPT debate itself but it was pretty spectacularly crap? Of course, we know we know, ChatGPT 4 is absolutely mind mind blowing and better, but let's see it again soon.
  - EMM_386 4y ago
    No, I set it up to have a "quiz party" with itself, where ChatGPT was essentially the moderator asking the questions, and the 4 other "AIs" had distinct personalities, or heavy accents. Like one was angry and always thought it was right, another was nervous and unsure about it's answers, one was 5 years old and another could barely speak English with a heavy accent but was confident in its answers. It was very interesting to watch. The "participants" actually started arguing with each other about the right answer, or straight-up insulting each other.
- politician 4y ago
  It's the multi-head attention that you're seeing in action. ChatGPT has 12, GPT-3 has 96.
ekidd 4y ago
> they're a Chinese Room Searle's "Chinese Room" thought experiment is designed to appeal to your intuition. But it appeals in an incredibly unrealistic way. If you fill a room full of people shuffling Han characters (why would anyone do this?) you cannot possibly have anything resembling intelligence. According to random guesses found on the internet, ChatGPT requires at least eight A100 GPUs to generate text. If you believe nVidia's marketing numbers, this gives you about 2.5 petaflops. That's 2.5 quadrillion operations per second, plus communications overhead. If you decide to implement that calculation, imagine 350,000 versions of planet Earth, each with 7 billion people performing one operation per second. And some kind of faster-than-light communication, I suppose. It's absolutely obvious to me that nothing like "thought" could possibly occur in any realistically-imaginable room full of people shuffling symbols. But if you fill 350,000 planets with people shuffling symbols frantically... I'm no longer sure? I don't trust my intuition at all? My brain is made up of a lot of atoms, and they somehow produce thought, after all. Now, ChatGPT is not conscious. We're still several major breakthoughs away from any kind of "real" AI, I think. All we have now is a language module, a large memory of knowledge about the world, and some very inconsistent reasoning abilities. Although I have a nasty suspicion that at least a few of the missing parts will be easy to invent once someone tries...
- rtkwe 4y ago
  The core of the analogy stands though IMO, the power isn't particularly relevant to the point, it's about the difference between an agent understanding what it's doing and just manipulating symbols or in the case of LLMs tokens.
- Reimersholme 4y ago
  [dead]
killerstorm 4y ago
Believing in "Chinese Room" non-sentience implies that you believe that there's something magical about flesh.

goatlover 4y ago

After two hours of badgering by media members looking to break the model. How many people are going to be using search like that?

danpalmer 4y ago

> Unfortunately, people get deeply uncomfortable when a chatbot starts having an existential crisis I'd go further and say that many of the responses I saw were actively abusive and could trigger significant mental health issues in vulnerable readers.