4 ms·
It does not think about anything. It continues previous conversation. If the previous conversation would imply positive sight on eugenics, it'll write good argu
by vbezhenar 3y ago
It does not think about anything. It continues previous conversation. If the previous conversation would imply positive sight on eugenics, it'll write good arguments for it. Otherwise it'll write good arguments against it. There's whole spectrum of opinions on every question in the written literature. And if there's not, it's easy to create opinion using some similar analogues. So Chat will basically write whatever you want to hear.
- jojobas 3y agoThat's a simplistic view on this. Explain this with "continues a conversation". https://twitter.com/maxhkw/status/1635693113560772633 https://twitter.com/maxhkw/status/1635693113560772633 Humans start by continuing conversations as well, but then are able to process facts to deduct new, previously unseen conclusions (sometimes wrong), and so do LLMs.
- calibas 3y agoIf your conversations don't include processing facts to deduce "new, previously unseen conclusions" then you need new friends. It's "continuing a conversation" in that it's predicting output token-by-token based upon training and the context window. I'm not trying to be dismissive, I actually don't think it's much different from how humans do it.
- jojobas 3y agoWell that's what I'm saying, they're perfectly capable of figuring out things that were not mentioned in the training corpus at all (see above comic), or to synthesize what it saw in far unrelated areas of the corpus into unknown as before data. Some may not want to call it thinking, but that's ahead of thinking ability of many an adult human with voting rights.
- electrondood 3y agoTHANK YOU. These are literally word-prediction machines. What they "think" is whatever probablistically follows from the training corpus, and then your input. If your model wasn't trained on tons of text about how great eugenics is, then it learns that words expressing positive sentiment in the context of eugenics are extremely low probability. This is also the "cause" of "woke" models: it turns out that the majority of us recognize that being an asshole is bad, and this is reflected in the majority of the training corpus, which comes from us collectively.
- jojobas 3y agoIf that was bad, ChatGPT wouldn't be spewing boilerplate "x bad" responses, it just can't follow from the training corpus that includes all sorts of views on pretty much anything. They had to plug it. Why? Also see above, they are word prediction machines similarly to how humans are word prediction machines.
- xigoi 3y ago> it turns out that the majority of us recognize that being an asshole is bad …but we disagree about what “being an asshole” looks like. Reasonable people think hating people for their sex/race is bad, no matter which one it is.
- jpgvm 3y ago"Reality has a liberal bias"
- xigoi 3y ago[flagged]
- jojobas 3y ago"Right-wing facts".
- xigoi 3y ago[flagged]
- master-lincoln 3y agoThis was probably when these words had their original meaning: censorship is something only a state actor can do and is not about companies having rules about what is published on their platforms. Discrimination is when people are treated differently because of attributes they had no influence in (age, sex, origin, skin color,...) and not about excluding people with attitudes you don't like.
- justrealist 3y agoGPT-4 has safety layers on top of the core model, trained on labeled human feedback. People are asking for the raw output of the underlying LLM, which is a pretty clear ask that doesn't require deconstructing the sentience and model-building capacity of an LLM.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]