4 ms·

https://github.com/RVC-Project/Retrieval-based-Voice-Conversion-WebUI/issues/503 https://github.com/RVC-Project/Retrieval-based-Voice-Convers...

by pombo 3y ago

bravetraveler 3y ago
Silly AI didn't even provide a link, I had to go find it by the given title Was curious if this was a case of 'I did the thing [but totally didn't]'
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  It provided a link in the original chat. It was the last word and you could click on it to see the issue it created.
  - bravetraveler 3y ago
    I completely missed it, wow! 404 now unfortunately, guess they're being slammed
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
It's a funny interaction. While I was mad initially, GPT-4 creating the issue actually solved problem for the user, so yeah I don't know if this should be counted as a positive or negative example of AI.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Ah yes, the perennial “that guardrail we said will prevent this tech from eluding our control… we blew past that and this is good actually” Comforting!
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Here it's not really blowing past a guardrail, but rather it's a sharp corner the end user didn't expect. End user set it up with tools that told ChatGPT -- If you need to open an issue, here's how: zzzzzzzzzz. Then he asked ChatGPT a question and was surprised that it did zzzzzzzzzzz and opened an issue without asking. Said tools may want to clarify their instructions to ChatGPT-- that users will usually want to be consulted before taking these kinds of actions.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      “Human in the loop” is meant to be “a human is always in positive control of the system’s actions.” It does not mean “system will sometimes do things unexpectedly and against user’s intention but upon generous interpretation we might say the human offered their input at some point during the system’s operation.”
      - mlyle 3y ago
        Humans misuse systems all the time and are surprised, even in safety critical regimes. Sometimes the system design is insufficient (I implied above the plugin could be a little better). I hate blaming the user instead of the system, but sometimes the user deserves the blame, too. Sometimes it really just is pilot error.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Assign blame wherever you want, the fact of the matter is this is not what most people mean when they say “human in the loop.” The “AI will always have HITL” argument was always weak, but now plainly disproven. The logged behavior would surprise many totally sensible people, as you’re seeing in this comment thread. What exactly was the user error? Are we to believe that if you authenticate a plug-in into your session you are okaying it to do any of its supported operations, even at wildly unexpected times, and this is considered “in the loop?”
        mlyle 3y ago
- Animats 3y ago
  It's an AI outsourcing work to humans. We'll be seeing more of that.

https://github.com/RVC-Project/Retrieval-based-Voice-Conversion-WebUI/issues/503 https://github.com/RVC-Project/Retrieval-based-Voice-Convers...

by pombo 3y ago

https://github.com/RVC-Project/Retrieval-based-Voice-Conversion-WebUI/issues/503 https://github.com/RVC-Project/Retrieval-based-Voice-Convers...

bravetraveler 3y ago

Silly AI didn't even provide a link, I had to go find it by the given title Was curious if this was a case of 'I did the thing [but totally didn't]'

famouswaffles 3y ago
It provided a link in the original chat. It was the last word and you could click on it to see the issue it created.
- bravetraveler 3y ago
  I completely missed it, wow! 404 now unfortunately, guess they're being slammed

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

It's a funny interaction. While I was mad initially, GPT-4 creating the issue actually solved problem for the user, so yeah I don't know if this should be counted as a positive or negative example of AI.

ethanbond 3y ago
Ah yes, the perennial “that guardrail we said will prevent this tech from eluding our control… we blew past that and this is good actually” Comforting!
- mlyle 3y ago
  Here it's not really blowing past a guardrail, but rather it's a sharp corner the end user didn't expect. End user set it up with tools that told ChatGPT -- If you need to open an issue, here's how: zzzzzzzzzz. Then he asked ChatGPT a question and was surprised that it did zzzzzzzzzzz and opened an issue without asking. Said tools may want to clarify their instructions to ChatGPT-- that users will usually want to be consulted before taking these kinds of actions.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    “Human in the loop” is meant to be “a human is always in positive control of the system’s actions.” It does not mean “system will sometimes do things unexpectedly and against user’s intention but upon generous interpretation we might say the human offered their input at some point during the system’s operation.”
    - mlyle 3y ago
      Humans misuse systems all the time and are surprised, even in safety critical regimes. Sometimes the system design is insufficient (I implied above the plugin could be a little better). I hate blaming the user instead of the system, but sometimes the user deserves the blame, too. Sometimes it really just is pilot error.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Assign blame wherever you want, the fact of the matter is this is not what most people mean when they say “human in the loop.” The “AI will always have HITL” argument was always weak, but now plainly disproven. The logged behavior would surprise many totally sensible people, as you’re seeing in this comment thread. What exactly was the user error? Are we to believe that if you authenticate a plug-in into your session you are okaying it to do any of its supported operations, even at wildly unexpected times, and this is considered “in the loop?”
        mlyle 3y ago
Animats 3y ago
It's an AI outsourcing work to humans. We'll be seeing more of that.