3 ms·

Yea. Honestly there's nothing worse than getting a "Sorry, as an AI language model, I cannot do..." This is especially awful when you're asking it to do somet

by robswc 3y ago

Yea. Honestly there's nothing worse than getting a "Sorry, as an AI language model, I cannot do..." This is especially awful when you're asking it to do something like "estimate the number of X in Y" or some task that it could clearly help with. I know exactly why they do this, its the safe option... but it is frustrating to deal with.

orbz 3y ago
There’s a difference between “can’t” and “won’t”. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it being up front that an attempt to answer a question is inherently impossible for it to answer. Information like estimating X in Y may or may not be possible from the underlying training data depending on X and Y.
- robswc 3y ago
  That's fair. Usually though when I ask these questions, it can provide an answer because it gives the information it needs in the response, it just doesn't want to take ownership of the statement "I guess there were X number of Y." I can usually get a rough estimate (that definitely makes sense or checks out) but it takes a lot of back and forth. Most memorable example was getting estimates of cars sold and what make/model. It would say "there were X of Y sold in 2020, but I cannot provide an estimate" only after some back and forth, so it certainly could have told me earlier.
  - orbz 3y ago
    That’s the thing though, it can be convinced to make a statement with conviction but that might not be based on fact. I just got ChatGPT4 to say that there might have been a few hundred mint green Kia Cherokees sold in 1997.
    - robswc 3y ago
      I guess it depends on how accurate you need the info to be. I double check its answers and it provides decent estimates every time but only after getting around the "as an AI model I cannot..." wall.
raxxorraxor 3y ago
We also saw that with image synthesis. As you can imagine, if you scrap the internet for content, any model will tend to generate "controversial" images itself. An example is stable diffusion. Of course there is interest in making it commercially viable or just SFW in general. The 2.0 model version was lobotomized to not create anything "bad". As a result it was pretty useless. There was a successor version 2.1 that did it to a lesser degree, but the old 1.5 model was still more flexible. Many user prefer it even if the training data for 2.0+ had higher resolution images. There are new models were we have to see. But I think the overall tendency to lobotomize AI is pretty negative for its overall development. There should always be an option for the educated user. Sadly, unlike with LLM, it is harder to circumvent these restriction by changing your input.

by robswc 3y ago

orbz 3y ago

There’s a difference between “can’t” and “won’t”. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it being up front that an attempt to answer a question is inherently impossible for it to answer. Information like estimating X in Y may or may not be possible from the underlying training data depending on X and Y.

robswc 3y ago
That's fair. Usually though when I ask these questions, it can provide an answer because it gives the information it needs in the response, it just doesn't want to take ownership of the statement "I guess there were X number of Y." I can usually get a rough estimate (that definitely makes sense or checks out) but it takes a lot of back and forth. Most memorable example was getting estimates of cars sold and what make/model. It would say "there were X of Y sold in 2020, but I cannot provide an estimate" only after some back and forth, so it certainly could have told me earlier.
- orbz 3y ago
  That’s the thing though, it can be convinced to make a statement with conviction but that might not be based on fact. I just got ChatGPT4 to say that there might have been a few hundred mint green Kia Cherokees sold in 1997.
  - robswc 3y ago
    I guess it depends on how accurate you need the info to be. I double check its answers and it provides decent estimates every time but only after getting around the "as an AI model I cannot..." wall.

raxxorraxor 3y ago

We also saw that with image synthesis. As you can imagine, if you scrap the internet for content, any model will tend to generate "controversial" images itself. An example is stable diffusion. Of course there is interest in making it commercially viable or just SFW in general. The 2.0 model version was lobotomized to not create anything "bad". As a result it was pretty useless. There was a successor version 2.1 that did it to a lesser degree, but the old 1.5 model was still more flexible. Many user prefer it even if the training data for 2.0+ had higher resolution images. There are new models were we have to see. But I think the overall tendency to lobotomize AI is pretty negative for its overall development. There should always be an option for the educated user. Sadly, unlike with LLM, it is harder to circumvent these restriction by changing your input.