4 ms·

>This comment section is a super fascinating case study on the inherent flaws in human cognition. Especially when it comes to seeing patterns in random noise. T

>This comment section is a super fascinating case study on the inherent flaws in human cognition. Especially when it comes to seeing patterns in random noise. The fact that some people believe that the model really has to have changed in the past few days is amazing You need only to look at the discourse around the Tesla FSD superusers to see this: they report a glitch at an intersection one day, then believe the next day it was "fixed" by the AI.

olabyne 3y ago
Thats even worse for autonomous cars, there is so such data and noise there is no way to reproduce the issue, it's complete chaos. Whereas with a LLM if we control the seed we can 100% reproduce the same result
- noduerme 3y ago
  >> if we control the seed we can 100% reproduce the same result No, that's the problem. You can't. You should be able to, but you can't. If you could, they wouldn't be scary. But we have Temperature Zero, different results. Because no one gave enough of a shit when coding them, and no one gives enough of a shit to try to fix the issue. This is what in any other industry would be called gross negligence.
  - jquery 3y ago
    A lot of stuff behind the scenes is going on to batch and route queries to GPT-4 models that are in perturbed states already[1]. This isn't gross negligence, this is basic capitalism. If you want sole access to a GPT-4 MoE cluster starting fresh, it's gonna cost you. 1. https://152334h.github.io/blog/non-determinism-in-gpt-4/ https://152334h.github.io/blog/non-determinism-in-gpt-4/
    - noduerme 3y ago
      Interesting article. I can see how it makes sense for OpenAI or someone with a LLM to take advantage of any entropy that presented itself, as a shortcut to non-repetitive answers. I'm not sure if you're saying that these LLMs take on new characteristics as they get more randomized? Or just that it would be hard to get your hands on a fresh one to test the determinism of?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - olabyne 3y ago
    That's a OpenAi problem, not a LLM problem
- sigmoid10 3y ago
  >Whereas with a LLM if we control the seed we can 100% reproduce the same result No, you can't. For the latest GPT models and the way they are run, this doesn't work anymore, making the experiment completely illogical. Some of the reasons are explained here pretty well: https://152334h.github.io/blog/non-determinism-in-gpt-4/ https://152334h.github.io/blog/non-determinism-in-gpt-4/
  - olabyne 3y ago
    This sounds more like a bug than a feature.
Karawebnetwork 3y ago
I noticed similar a behavior in Stable Diffusion forums where people believe that the model they downloaded and are running offline is getting better at understanding their prompts.
- kozikow 3y ago
  Stable diffusion most likely don't do it, but even static model that as an input takes embedding of all your historic prompts + current prompt would get progressively give you better inputs as you use it.
  - joshspankit 3y ago
    Yes, but currently that would be a conscious choice (and extra intentional effort)
mcbuilder 3y ago
Go into /r/chatgpt and /r/bing and it's a bit scary how many people anthropomorphize the models.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Interesting that modern discourse is to use "scary" and "dangerous" and such words so much more. I wonder if it is related to the present rise in neuroticism and trigger warnings etc. It's not particularly "scary" to me that people do that. I remember Boomer and Scooby Doo bots that people anthropomorphized and those were warbots from barely 10 y ago. I suppose, in today's parlance, "it's scary how much people use fear-oriented language for normal things".
  - xtracto 3y ago
    Great comment. I take it, the use of "scary" is more of a tool to provoke a stronger reaction or animosity to the comment reader, more than actually the writer feeling "scared" after seeing people anthropomorphising AI. It seems to be the current trend in communication nowadays: A race to induce the strongest reaction possible. Why should someone be scared of that? We have anthropomorphised chairs, brooms and whatnot since the Walt Disney times and I am sure before in classic literature (I am not that literate to know for certain). I prefer to be 'amazed' or 'excited' about what is happening: It means that AI is getting to a point where people feel it more 'relatable'. We are getting to that point in our technology development. The number of things we will be able to do with a technology with which we can interact that seamlesly is great.
  - vineyardmike 3y ago
    > Interesting that modern discourse is to use "scary" and "dangerous" and such words so much more. I wonder if it is related to the present rise in neuroticism and trigger warnings etc. I doubt it’s trigger warnings because they usually don’t “warn scary things”. Also is there any data to back up that scary and fear is used more today than in the past? That seems unlikely.
  - joshspankit 3y ago
    > and those were warbots from barely 10 y ago. Some people even anthropomorphized Eliza. To your point: if you cherry pick enough and survey enough people; “some people” will do just about anything.

olabyne 3y ago

Thats even worse for autonomous cars, there is so such data and noise there is no way to reproduce the issue, it's complete chaos. Whereas with a LLM if we control the seed we can 100% reproduce the same result

noduerme 3y ago
>> if we control the seed we can 100% reproduce the same result No, that's the problem. You can't. You should be able to, but you can't. If you could, they wouldn't be scary. But we have Temperature Zero, different results. Because no one gave enough of a shit when coding them, and no one gives enough of a shit to try to fix the issue. This is what in any other industry would be called gross negligence.
- jquery 3y ago
  A lot of stuff behind the scenes is going on to batch and route queries to GPT-4 models that are in perturbed states already[1]. This isn't gross negligence, this is basic capitalism. If you want sole access to a GPT-4 MoE cluster starting fresh, it's gonna cost you. 1. https://152334h.github.io/blog/non-determinism-in-gpt-4/ https://152334h.github.io/blog/non-determinism-in-gpt-4/
  - noduerme 3y ago
    Interesting article. I can see how it makes sense for OpenAI or someone with a LLM to take advantage of any entropy that presented itself, as a shortcut to non-repetitive answers. I'm not sure if you're saying that these LLMs take on new characteristics as they get more randomized? Or just that it would be hard to get your hands on a fresh one to test the determinism of?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- olabyne 3y ago
  That's a OpenAi problem, not a LLM problem
sigmoid10 3y ago
>Whereas with a LLM if we control the seed we can 100% reproduce the same result No, you can't. For the latest GPT models and the way they are run, this doesn't work anymore, making the experiment completely illogical. Some of the reasons are explained here pretty well: https://152334h.github.io/blog/non-determinism-in-gpt-4/ https://152334h.github.io/blog/non-determinism-in-gpt-4/
- olabyne 3y ago
  This sounds more like a bug than a feature.

Karawebnetwork 3y ago

I noticed similar a behavior in Stable Diffusion forums where people believe that the model they downloaded and are running offline is getting better at understanding their prompts.

kozikow 3y ago
Stable diffusion most likely don't do it, but even static model that as an input takes embedding of all your historic prompts + current prompt would get progressively give you better inputs as you use it.
- joshspankit 3y ago
  Yes, but currently that would be a conscious choice (and extra intentional effort)

mcbuilder 3y ago

Go into /r/chatgpt and /r/bing and it's a bit scary how many people anthropomorphize the models.

renewiltord 3y ago
Interesting that modern discourse is to use "scary" and "dangerous" and such words so much more. I wonder if it is related to the present rise in neuroticism and trigger warnings etc. It's not particularly "scary" to me that people do that. I remember Boomer and Scooby Doo bots that people anthropomorphized and those were warbots from barely 10 y ago. I suppose, in today's parlance, "it's scary how much people use fear-oriented language for normal things".
- xtracto 3y ago
  Great comment. I take it, the use of "scary" is more of a tool to provoke a stronger reaction or animosity to the comment reader, more than actually the writer feeling "scared" after seeing people anthropomorphising AI. It seems to be the current trend in communication nowadays: A race to induce the strongest reaction possible. Why should someone be scared of that? We have anthropomorphised chairs, brooms and whatnot since the Walt Disney times and I am sure before in classic literature (I am not that literate to know for certain). I prefer to be 'amazed' or 'excited' about what is happening: It means that AI is getting to a point where people feel it more 'relatable'. We are getting to that point in our technology development. The number of things we will be able to do with a technology with which we can interact that seamlesly is great.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  > Interesting that modern discourse is to use "scary" and "dangerous" and such words so much more. I wonder if it is related to the present rise in neuroticism and trigger warnings etc. I doubt it’s trigger warnings because they usually don’t “warn scary things”. Also is there any data to back up that scary and fear is used more today than in the past? That seems unlikely.
- joshspankit 3y ago
  > and those were warbots from barely 10 y ago. Some people even anthropomorphized Eliza. To your point: if you cherry pick enough and survey enough people; “some people” will do just about anything.