> Given an LLM, can you identify which of the parameters that are responsible for generating pornography? The pornography in the training data. > By looking a

> Given an LLM, can you identify which of the parameters that are responsible for generating pornography? The pornography in the training data. > By looking at the parameters, can you tell how reliable or unreliable the filter is? The parameters in the model? No, because that's not in a human-readable form: it's a highly-compressed cache. But those parameters aren't mysterious any more than a JPEG is mysterious because you can't read its bytecode. The parameters come from the training data, just as the lossy compressed bytes in a JPEG come from whatever raw format was compressed. You're viewing the model as if it's some sort of mystery, but it's not. It's just a lossy-compressed cache of the training data optimized for quick access. There is nothing there which is not from the training data. The rest of your post is asking me, personally, about my knowledge of the system, and then extrapolating that answer to all of humanity, which happens to include the people who made ChatGPT. Just because people with no access to the code or training data of ChatGPT can't answer a question about ChatGPT doesn't mean those questions can't be answered. > If all of this was entirely predictable, then no one would be surprised. But we have ample evidence that the vast majority of people have been shocked by what it can do. The surprise of people who don't understand how something works, is not evidence that nobody understands how it works.