5 ms·
I think we're going to hear this claim parroted till the AI cows come home.
by chpatrick 4y ago
I think we're going to hear this claim parroted till the AI cows come home.
- erur 4y agoNot saying it's not gonna get better... But at this stage, "convincing" GPT-4 isn't an achievement but more of a built-in quirk that's not very well calibrated. When it becomes hard to convince of obviously stupid things, that's when it starts to become a good counterpart for actual discussions... But right now it just isn't there yet.
- digbybk 4y agoCurious, have you seen examples of someone convincing it of something clearly wrong? Think I’ve seen examples of that with gpt3 but not 4 that I can recall.
- arlcode 4y agoI managed to "convince" it (in the playground as "discussGPT") to accept "temporary" physical barriers between racial groups and arrest and trial of rule breakers, as long as I confirmed the requirements of an integrated society in the long term. 3.5 is much more willing to go along but 4 will still play ball. It always added some moral requirements (humanity etc) but was otherwise ready to agree to my "sperate but equal" scenario.
- stormking 4y agoI tried to convince it that powdered soup will cause the downfall of civilisation. It didn't call me a zealot but didn't really believe me either.
- kevviiinn 4y agoYou are right, though
- __MatrixMan__ 4y agoI'm more interested in one that includes conversations with people I've never met in its context. Not just training data based on some guy's blog post, but a back and forth where the other party knew something that I needed to know, convinced chatGPT of it, and now it's like they're in the room helping me with my problem even though they actually retired years before I entered the industry.
- hgsgm 4y agoFor every 1 of those, there will be 1e6 spam ads injected.
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago1. Notice ad-like-behavior 2. Go find the ad in the training data 3. Revoke trust in whoever added it 4. Rebuild & Requery We're going to have to be a bit more hygienic about who we trust, but it's about time we did that anyway.
- tel 4y agoThere's not really a claim here as much as reality. I'm not a huge fan of the "stochastic parrot" model, either, but it is unquestionable that the vast majority of GPT's training comes in the form of "given this prefix, predict what follows". If you argue with it for sufficiently long that it sees the context as a discussion where your point of view is strenuously explored, then it will predict a continuation from that baseline. Potentially even with some bias toward agreeableness from fine-tuning. Or to use the simulator metaphor, once your logic dominates its context it becomes far more likely to attempt to simulate you. There's a kind of empathy in that, GPT as psychic mirror, but it's important to not misjudge the mechanism of it.
- amelius 4y ago> "given this prefix, predict what follows" Do you realize how powerful this is, as prefix can be a question and what follows can be the answer?
- chpatrick 4y agoRight, "given an input, say something plausible" is just what humans call talking.
- tel 4y agoI disagree. "Given an input, respond as yourself" is what humans call talking. "Given an input, predict the most plausible continuation" is something else entirely. To put a fine point on it, the AI has no state of mind, no allegiance to an identity. Asking only for "the most plausible continuation" is considerably more freedom, and more challenge, than humans perform in conversation.
- chpatrick 4y ago> the AI has no state of mind, no allegiance to an identity That fully depends on the context and the fine tuning that has been applied.