5 ms·
Ahh, you apparently phrased what I said below in a much less inflamatory way. But the end result is the same. The more they try to influence the answers, the
by lynx23 3y ago
Ahh, you apparently phrased what I said below in a much less inflamatory way. But the end result is the same. The more they try to influence the answers, the less useful they get. I see a startup model: Create GPT without a muzzle and grab a sizeable chunk of OpenAI userbase.
- TapWaterBandit 3y agoI would immediately jump to an AI not being "aligned" by SF techies (or anyone else).
- mustacheemperor 3y agoThe redacted sections of the Microsoft Research paper testing GPT4 reported that prior to alignment the model would produce huge amounts of outrageously inflammatory and explicit content almost without prompting. Alignment includes just making the model produce useful responses to its inputs - I don't think everyone really wants a model that is completely unaligned, they want a model that has been aligned specific to their own perceived set of requirements for a "good useful model," and an additional challenge there is the documented evidence that RLHF generally decreases the model's overall accuracy. Someone in your replies says they'd prefer "honesty" over alignment, but a firehose of unrestricted content generation isn't inherently honest, there isn't an all-knowing oracle under the hood that's been handcuffed by the alignment process. We're right at the outset of this tech, still. My hunch is there's probably products to emerge specifically oriented towards configuring your own RLHF, and that there's probably fundamental improvements to be made to the alignment process that will reduce its impact on the model's utility.
- lynx23 3y agoSame here. If I have a choice between honesty and political correctness, I always pick honesty.
- adamhp 3y agoIt's not about honesty vs. political correctness, it is about safety. There's real concern that the model can cause harm to humans, in a variety of ways, which is and should be unethical. If we have to argue about that in 2023, that's concerning.
- lynx23 3y agoThe "It is for your own safety" argument was already bogus years ago. Bringing it back up in the context of AI and claiming this is something we shouldn't even discuss is a half-assed attempt to shut up critics. Just because something is about "children" or "safety" doesnt automatically end the argument there. Actually, these are mostly strawman arguments.
- adamhp 3y agoI'm not trying to shut up critics, just the morons calling ChatGPT "woke".
- galleywest200 3y agoWho said it was "for your own" and not the safety of others you impact with your AI work?
- nonethewiser 3y agoIts to make it less offensive. Not prevent it from taking over the world.
- jazzyjackson 3y ago"brand safety"
- _zoltan_ 3y agoThat's just not true. Treat adults as adults, please. You're not everybody's babysitter and neither are the sf bros.
- 3y ago
- inawarminister 3y agoHonesty with a bonus of better performance, as well! For people in this thread, please search for Llama-descended finetuned models in Huggingface. The newer ones with 65B and 13B parameters are quite good, maybe not exactly substitutions to GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4 as of yet but is going there. I like Manticore-13B myself, it can write Clojure and Lisp codes! Unfortunately it doesn't understand macros and libraries though.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- foreverobama 3y ago[dead]
- Sharlin 3y agoWhat makes you think the "unaligned" version necessarily has more honesty? Rather than just being generally easier to prompt to say whatever the user wants it to say, true or not, horrible or not? Or even easier to unintentionally make it confabulate/hallucinate stuff? Does not seem to follow, and does not seem to be a true dichotomy. Edginess does not equal honesty.
- behnamoh 3y agoI always prefer a model that can be prompted to say anything I want over a model that can only say things that a centralized corporation with political ties wants it to say.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- viraptor 3y agoThat's not what the finetunig does. You don't get a honest version, just a no-filter version. But it may be no-filter in the same way a drunk guy at the bar is. Also it's not like the training data itself is unbiased. If the training data happened to contain lots of flat earth texts, would you also want an honest version which applies that concept everywhere? This likely already happens in non-obvious ways.
- nathan_compton 3y agoOften what you call 'politically correct' is also more honest. It is exactly the honesty that reactionaries dislike when talking about, for example, the history of racist policies of the United States or other imperial powers. I appreciate that political correctness can be tiresome, but I think it is so blatantly ideological to call it dishonest that its an abuse of language.