4 ms·

I think the concern is to get laypeople to understand that ChatGPT's output has a non-tangential chance of being completely false, not to get laypeople to under

I think the concern is to get laypeople to understand that ChatGPT's output has a non-tangential chance of being completely false, not to get laypeople to understand the nuances of the falsities ChatGPT may produce. In this case, lying is the most effective description even if it isn't the most accurate one.

gwd 4y ago
I'm not sure that's the case. After all, most people lie to you for a reason. GPT isn't purposely trying to mislead you for its own gain; in fact that's part of the reason that our normal "lie detectors" completely fail: there's absolutely nothing to gain from making up (say) a plausible sounding scientific reference; so why would we suspect GPT of doing so?
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  You're still focused on accurately describing the category of falsehood ChatGPT produces. You're missing the point. The point is that people don't even understand that ChatGPT produces falsehoods significantly enough that every statement it produces must be first determined about its truthfulness. To describe it as a liar effectively explains that understanding without any technical knowledge.
  - simonw 4y ago
    That's exactly the point I've been trying to make, thanks for putting it in such clear terms.
  - gwd 4y ago
    "GPT is lying" is just so inaccurate, that I would consider it basically a lie. It may alert people to the fact that not everything it says is true, but by giving them a bad model of what GPT is like, it's likely to lead to worse outcomes down the road. I'd rather spend a tiny bit more effort and give people a good model for why GPT behaves the way it behaves. I don't think that "GPT thinks it's writing a novel" is "technical" at all; much less "too technical" for ordinary people. In a discussion on Facebook with my family and friends about whether GPT has emotions, I wrote this: 8<--- Imagine you volunteered to be part of a psychological experiment; and for the experiment, they had you come and sit in a room, and they gave you the following sheet of paper: "Consider the following conversation between Alice and Bob. Please try to complete what Alice might say in this situation. Alice: Hey, Bob! Wow, you look really serious -- what's going on? Bob: Alice, I have something to confess. For the last few months I've been stealing from you. Alice: " Obviously in this situation, you might write Alice as displaying some strong emotions -- getting angry, crying, disbelief, or whatever. But you yourself would not be feeling that emotion -- Alice is a fictional character in your head; Alice's intents, thoughts, and emotions are not your intents, thoughts, or emotions. That test is basically the situation ChatGPT is in 100% of the time. Its intent is always to "make a plausible completion". (Which is why it will often make things up out of thin air -- it's not trying to be truthful per se, it's trying to make a plausible text.) Any emotion or intent the character appears to display is the same as the emotion "Alice" would display in our hypothetical scenario above: the intents and emotions of a fictional character in ChatGPT's "head", not the intents or emotions of ChatGPT itself. --->8 Again, I don't think that's technical at all. Earlier today I was describing GPT to a friend, and I said, "Imagine a coworker who was amazingly erudite; you could ask him about any topic imaginable, and he would confidently give an amazing sounding answer. Unfortunately, only 70% of the stuff he said was correct; the other 30% was completely made up." That doesn't go into the model at all, but at least it introduce a bad model like "lying" does.

gwd 4y ago

I'm not sure that's the case. After all, most people lie to you for a reason. GPT isn't purposely trying to mislead you for its own gain; in fact that's part of the reason that our normal "lie detectors" completely fail: there's absolutely nothing to gain from making up (say) a plausible sounding scientific reference; so why would we suspect GPT of doing so?

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
You're still focused on accurately describing the category of falsehood ChatGPT produces. You're missing the point. The point is that people don't even understand that ChatGPT produces falsehoods significantly enough that every statement it produces must be first determined about its truthfulness. To describe it as a liar effectively explains that understanding without any technical knowledge.
- simonw 4y ago
  That's exactly the point I've been trying to make, thanks for putting it in such clear terms.
- gwd 4y ago
  "GPT is lying" is just so inaccurate, that I would consider it basically a lie. It may alert people to the fact that not everything it says is true, but by giving them a bad model of what GPT is like, it's likely to lead to worse outcomes down the road. I'd rather spend a tiny bit more effort and give people a good model for why GPT behaves the way it behaves. I don't think that "GPT thinks it's writing a novel" is "technical" at all; much less "too technical" for ordinary people. In a discussion on Facebook with my family and friends about whether GPT has emotions, I wrote this: 8<--- Imagine you volunteered to be part of a psychological experiment; and for the experiment, they had you come and sit in a room, and they gave you the following sheet of paper: "Consider the following conversation between Alice and Bob. Please try to complete what Alice might say in this situation. Alice: Hey, Bob! Wow, you look really serious -- what's going on? Bob: Alice, I have something to confess. For the last few months I've been stealing from you. Alice: " Obviously in this situation, you might write Alice as displaying some strong emotions -- getting angry, crying, disbelief, or whatever. But you yourself would not be feeling that emotion -- Alice is a fictional character in your head; Alice's intents, thoughts, and emotions are not your intents, thoughts, or emotions. That test is basically the situation ChatGPT is in 100% of the time. Its intent is always to "make a plausible completion". (Which is why it will often make things up out of thin air -- it's not trying to be truthful per se, it's trying to make a plausible text.) Any emotion or intent the character appears to display is the same as the emotion "Alice" would display in our hypothetical scenario above: the intents and emotions of a fictional character in ChatGPT's "head", not the intents or emotions of ChatGPT itself. --->8 Again, I don't think that's technical at all. Earlier today I was describing GPT to a friend, and I said, "Imagine a coworker who was amazingly erudite; you could ask him about any topic imaginable, and he would confidently give an amazing sounding answer. Unfortunately, only 70% of the stuff he said was correct; the other 30% was completely made up." That doesn't go into the model at all, but at least it introduce a bad model like "lying" does.