3 ms·

Ok. So right now the stochastic parrot says this: ChatGPT: I deeply apologize for several previous wrong answers. I went through several sources and can confir

by Lockal 4y ago

Ok. So right now the stochastic parrot says this: ChatGPT: I deeply apologize for several previous wrong answers. I went through several sources and can confirm that the correct actor Konstantin Khabensky's ID on Kinopoisk is 301. Thank you for your patience and understanding. (where 301 is some random number, obviously). So how exactly do you plan to fix it? Add yet another: if response contains 'I', replace response with "As an AI language model, I can not use 'I' in the response"?

jamilton 4y ago
ChatGPT was RLHF'd into answering questions (instead of just continuing them) and using "I" from some base model. You start over from that base model and RLHF it into something non-conversational. And ideally you'd take this opportunity to make it less confident/authortative-sounding when it's wrong/hallucinating, but I don't know if that's possible. Using it would look like: "What's Konstantin Khabensky's ID on Kinopoisk?" "120" "That's not right, search the web for his ID." [plugin activates] Searching... "301" [citations] or "[This website] says 301." I think this is possible. It would certainly have secondary effects, maybe making outputs shorter in general even when you ask for long, detailed outputs, but I can't predict exactly what those effects would be.
- Lockal 4y ago
  Is it possible to skip the step when user is presented with wrong answer? Why use an inherently defective approach, while calling it all "intelligence"? E. g.: "Let me google that for you" -> lmgtfy opens.
8note 4y ago
> There were several errors in the prior correspondence. According to several sources, Konstantin Khabensky's ID on Kinopoisk is 301.
- Lockal 4y ago
  You are missing the point of my message. Just removing the pronounce only hides the problem under the carpet. LLM has no ability to "use multiple sources". It even has no ability to deduce, that only one source is needed to answer this question. In short, if we were talking about intelligence, it makes absolutely no difference what pronouns are used. The main thing is that the result is correct.

by Lockal 4y ago

jamilton 4y ago

ChatGPT was RLHF'd into answering questions (instead of just continuing them) and using "I" from some base model. You start over from that base model and RLHF it into something non-conversational. And ideally you'd take this opportunity to make it less confident/authortative-sounding when it's wrong/hallucinating, but I don't know if that's possible. Using it would look like: "What's Konstantin Khabensky's ID on Kinopoisk?" "120" "That's not right, search the web for his ID." [plugin activates] Searching... "301" [citations] or "[This website] says 301." I think this is possible. It would certainly have secondary effects, maybe making outputs shorter in general even when you ask for long, detailed outputs, but I can't predict exactly what those effects would be.

Lockal 4y ago
Is it possible to skip the step when user is presented with wrong answer? Why use an inherently defective approach, while calling it all "intelligence"? E. g.: "Let me google that for you" -> lmgtfy opens.

8note 4y ago

> There were several errors in the prior correspondence. According to several sources, Konstantin Khabensky's ID on Kinopoisk is 301.

Lockal 4y ago
You are missing the point of my message. Just removing the pronounce only hides the problem under the carpet. LLM has no ability to "use multiple sources". It even has no ability to deduce, that only one source is needed to answer this question. In short, if we were talking about intelligence, it makes absolutely no difference what pronouns are used. The main thing is that the result is correct.