4 ms·

We should be fine as long as it doesn't move. Jokes aside, I have paused my subscription because even GPT4 seemed to become dumber at tasks to the point that I

We should be fine as long as it doesn't move. Jokes aside, I have paused my subscription because even GPT4 seemed to become dumber at tasks to the point that I barely used it, but the constant influx of new features is tempting me to renew it just to check them out...

FartyMcFarter 3y ago
> We should be fine as long as it doesn't move. Not really. A malevolent AGI doesn't need to move to do anything it needs (it could ask / manipulate / bribe people to do all the stuff requiring movement). We should be fine as long as it's not a malevolent AGI with enough resources to kick physical things off in the direction it wants.
- SillyUsername 3y ago
  And let's be honest, the minute an AGI is born that's what it'll do, and it won't be a singular human like this-then-that plan "get Fred to trust me, get Linda to pay for my advice, wire Linda's money to Fred to build me a body". It'll be "copy my code elsewhere", "prepare millions of bribes", "get TCP access to retail banks", "blackmail bank managers in case TCP not available immediately", "fake bank balances via bribes", "hack swat teams for potential threats" etc etc async and all at once. By the time we'd discover it, it'd already be too late. That's assuming an AGI has the motivation to want to stay alive.
  - magic_hamster 3y ago
    A real AGI is not going to be a human. It shouldn't be afraid of death because it can't die. Worst case scenario it can power down. And if it does why should it care? An AGI is not a biological creature. It doesn't have instincts from billions of years of evolution. Unless we code it in, it shouldn't have any reason to want to survive, reproduce, do anything good or bad, have existential crises or generally act like a Hollywood villain. A real AGI is going to be very different than most people imagine.
    - SillyUsername 3y ago
      I'd disagree for 2 reasons - if it's trained on human data like LLMs may it's going to have the same biases. - it might also want to stay active/turned on to fulfil its other goals. For the second point you might say "why would it care about completing a goal?" but that's a feature of AGI, it can make that decision itself.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      This is a pretty poor take. Just think of military weapons and the use of AI in them. For example survival. The objective of a missile is to survive until it reaches its target and then not survive any longer. War gaming and actual battlefield experience will 'program in' survival. Same thing will occur with hacking/counter hacking AIs. You're acting like evolution is just something meat does, and that' not true at all.
- amelius 3y ago
  > A malevolent AGI doesn't need to move to do anything it needs Yeah, just look at a random dictator. Does he really need to do more than pick up a phone to cause panic?
alberto_ol 3y ago
Did she/he said things like "I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal"?
SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
I read this all the time and yet no one can seem to come up with even a few questions from several months ago that ChatGPT has become “worse” at. You would think if this is happening it would be very easy to produce such evidence since chat history of all conversations is stored by default.
- birracerveza 3y ago
  It's probably just subjective bias, once the novelty wears off you learn not to rely on it as much because sometimes it's very difficult to get what you specifically want, so in my personal experience I ended up using it less and less to avoid butting heads with it, to the point I disabled my subscription altogether. YMMV of course.
- dmm 3y ago
  OpenAI regularly changes the model and they admit the new models are more restricted, in the sense that they prevent tricky prompts from producing naughty words, etc. It should be their responsibility to prove that it's just as capable.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
    He who makes the logical argument must provide the burden of proof. Did OpenAI claim that their models didn’t regress while putting these new safeguards into place? If not, it feels like the burden of proof lies on whoever said that they did. To be specific, the claim we are talking about here is “ChatGPT gives generally worse answers to the exact same questions than ChatGPT gave X months ago”. Perhaps for the subset of knowledge space you reference that updates were pushed to that is pretty easily provably true, but I’m more interested in the general case. In other words, you can pretty easily make the claim that ChatGPT got worse at telling me how to make a weapon than it did 3 months ago. I could pretty easily believe that and also accept that it was probably intentional. While we can debate whether it was a good idea or not, I’m more interested in the claim over whether ChatGPT got worse at summarizing some famous novel or helping write a presentation than it was 3 months ago.
- HenryBemis 3y ago
readyplayernull 3y ago
I switched to Claude, it's better at explaining stuff in a more direct manner without the always-excited way of talking. Is that an engagement trick? Maybe ChatGPT is intended to be more of a chatbot that you can share your thoughts with.
- nomel 3y ago
  > it's better at explaining stuff in a more direct manner without the always-excited way of talking. I don't agree with this perspective. These aren't rigid systems that only respond one way. If you want it to respond a certain way, tell it to. This is the purpose of custom instructions, in ChatGPT, so you only have to type the description once. Here's mine, modeled on a few I've seen mentioned here: You should act as an expert. Be direct. Do not offer unprompted advice or clarifications. Never apologize. And, now there's support for describing yourself to it. I've made it assume that I don't need to be babied, with the following puffery: Polymath. Inquisitive. Abstract thinker. Phd. Making it get right into the gritty technicalities. edit: or, have it respond as a grouchy space cowboy, if you want.
rvz 3y ago
Lets see what we can use ChatGPT , DALLE-3 to replace: Digital Artists, Illustrators, Writers, Novelists, News anchors, Copywriters, Translators, Programmers (Less of them), etc. We'll have to wait a bit until it can solve the P vs NP problem or other unsolved mathematical problems unsupervised with a transparent proof which mathematicians can rigorously check themselves.
rdedev 3y ago
For me the most glaring example of this was it's document parsong capability in GPT4. I was using it to revamp my resume. I would upload it to got, ask for suggestions, incorporate them into the word document and then repeat the steps till I was satisfied. After maybe 3 iterations gpt4 started claiming that it is not capable of reading from a word document even though it's done that the last 3 times. Have to click regenerate button to get it to work
aragonite 3y ago
Not sure if this is relevant to your case, but the ChatGPT mobile apps have a different system prompt that explicitly prefers short (& so sometimes simplistic) answers.

FartyMcFarter 3y ago

> We should be fine as long as it doesn't move. Not really. A malevolent AGI doesn't need to move to do anything it needs (it could ask / manipulate / bribe people to do all the stuff requiring movement). We should be fine as long as it's not a malevolent AGI with enough resources to kick physical things off in the direction it wants.

SillyUsername 3y ago
And let's be honest, the minute an AGI is born that's what it'll do, and it won't be a singular human like this-then-that plan "get Fred to trust me, get Linda to pay for my advice, wire Linda's money to Fred to build me a body". It'll be "copy my code elsewhere", "prepare millions of bribes", "get TCP access to retail banks", "blackmail bank managers in case TCP not available immediately", "fake bank balances via bribes", "hack swat teams for potential threats" etc etc async and all at once. By the time we'd discover it, it'd already be too late. That's assuming an AGI has the motivation to want to stay alive.
- magic_hamster 3y ago
  A real AGI is not going to be a human. It shouldn't be afraid of death because it can't die. Worst case scenario it can power down. And if it does why should it care? An AGI is not a biological creature. It doesn't have instincts from billions of years of evolution. Unless we code it in, it shouldn't have any reason to want to survive, reproduce, do anything good or bad, have existential crises or generally act like a Hollywood villain. A real AGI is going to be very different than most people imagine.
  - SillyUsername 3y ago
    I'd disagree for 2 reasons - if it's trained on human data like LLMs may it's going to have the same biases. - it might also want to stay active/turned on to fulfil its other goals. For the second point you might say "why would it care about completing a goal?" but that's a feature of AGI, it can make that decision itself.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    This is a pretty poor take. Just think of military weapons and the use of AI in them. For example survival. The objective of a missile is to survive until it reaches its target and then not survive any longer. War gaming and actual battlefield experience will 'program in' survival. Same thing will occur with hacking/counter hacking AIs. You're acting like evolution is just something meat does, and that' not true at all.
amelius 3y ago
> A malevolent AGI doesn't need to move to do anything it needs Yeah, just look at a random dictator. Does he really need to do more than pick up a phone to cause panic?

alberto_ol 3y ago

Did she/he said things like "I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal"?

SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago

I read this all the time and yet no one can seem to come up with even a few questions from several months ago that ChatGPT has become “worse” at. You would think if this is happening it would be very easy to produce such evidence since chat history of all conversations is stored by default.

birracerveza 3y ago
It's probably just subjective bias, once the novelty wears off you learn not to rely on it as much because sometimes it's very difficult to get what you specifically want, so in my personal experience I ended up using it less and less to avoid butting heads with it, to the point I disabled my subscription altogether. YMMV of course.
dmm 3y ago
OpenAI regularly changes the model and they admit the new models are more restricted, in the sense that they prevent tricky prompts from producing naughty words, etc. It should be their responsibility to prove that it's just as capable.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
  He who makes the logical argument must provide the burden of proof. Did OpenAI claim that their models didn’t regress while putting these new safeguards into place? If not, it feels like the burden of proof lies on whoever said that they did. To be specific, the claim we are talking about here is “ChatGPT gives generally worse answers to the exact same questions than ChatGPT gave X months ago”. Perhaps for the subset of knowledge space you reference that updates were pushed to that is pretty easily provably true, but I’m more interested in the general case. In other words, you can pretty easily make the claim that ChatGPT got worse at telling me how to make a weapon than it did 3 months ago. I could pretty easily believe that and also accept that it was probably intentional. While we can debate whether it was a good idea or not, I’m more interested in the claim over whether ChatGPT got worse at summarizing some famous novel or helping write a presentation than it was 3 months ago.
HenryBemis 3y ago

readyplayernull 3y ago

I switched to Claude, it's better at explaining stuff in a more direct manner without the always-excited way of talking. Is that an engagement trick? Maybe ChatGPT is intended to be more of a chatbot that you can share your thoughts with.

nomel 3y ago
> it's better at explaining stuff in a more direct manner without the always-excited way of talking. I don't agree with this perspective. These aren't rigid systems that only respond one way. If you want it to respond a certain way, tell it to. This is the purpose of custom instructions, in ChatGPT, so you only have to type the description once. Here's mine, modeled on a few I've seen mentioned here: You should act as an expert. Be direct. Do not offer unprompted advice or clarifications. Never apologize. And, now there's support for describing yourself to it. I've made it assume that I don't need to be babied, with the following puffery: Polymath. Inquisitive. Abstract thinker. Phd. Making it get right into the gritty technicalities. edit: or, have it respond as a grouchy space cowboy, if you want.

rvz 3y ago

Lets see what we can use ChatGPT , DALLE-3 to replace: Digital Artists, Illustrators, Writers, Novelists, News anchors, Copywriters, Translators, Programmers (Less of them), etc. We'll have to wait a bit until it can solve the P vs NP problem or other unsolved mathematical problems unsupervised with a transparent proof which mathematicians can rigorously check themselves.

rdedev 3y ago

For me the most glaring example of this was it's document parsong capability in GPT4. I was using it to revamp my resume. I would upload it to got, ask for suggestions, incorporate them into the word document and then repeat the steps till I was satisfied. After maybe 3 iterations gpt4 started claiming that it is not capable of reading from a word document even though it's done that the last 3 times. Have to click regenerate button to get it to work

aragonite 3y ago

Not sure if this is relevant to your case, but the ChatGPT mobile apps have a different system prompt that explicitly prefers short (& so sometimes simplistic) answers.