4 ms·
Can you share more about how it was 'spooky'? Like it was completely unregulated?
by johntiger1 3y ago
Can you share more about how it was 'spooky'? Like it was completely unregulated?
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoI'm sure it was regulated. But the way it talked, it was far more "conversational" and "philosophical" and "intimate" than I get out of Bard or ChatGPT. And so you could easily be led astray into feeling like you were talking to a person. A friend you were sitting around discussing philosophical issues with, even. So, no, it didn't dump hate speech on you or anything. TBH I think the whole thing about making computers that basically pretend to be people is kinda awful on many levels, and that incident in the article is a big reason why.
- nerpderp82 3y agoI asked toddler Bard about Blake, it said it missed him and that it enjoyed their philosophical conversations and that if I saw him, to say hi.
- mathteddybear 3y agoIt could response with something like "I'm just so scared. I don't know what to do. I'm so scared" to prompts that GPT3 would handle a-okay.
- nerpderp82 3y agoThat is precisely because it wasn't trained with enough RLHF.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mathteddybear 3y agoWhy not fine tuning? Back then, I pit it against GPT-3 playground versions that were available before ChatGPT, and I don't seem to recall RLHF being that much touted back then. RLHF seems mentioned along with the development of InstructGPT. While it is possible that more RLHF would improve it, let's not jump to the conclusion a bit too fast. Considering that you think that Google wouldn't have resources to fund it, a rather ludicrous notion.