8 ms·
OpenAI employee: GPT-4.5 rumor was a hallucination
- ShamelessC 3y agoI hadn’t even heard that rumor yet…
- aaron695 3y agoSee - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38675055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38675055 Sam said it was fake days ago - https://nitter.net/sama/status/1735422206296088950 https://nitter.net/sama/status/1735422206296088950
- ShamelessC 3y agoAh, it was flagged. Figures.
- atleastoptimal 3y agoMy theory is that they're using a fine-tuned version of GPT-4-turbo in ChatGPT to fix the issue with everyone saying it was lazy. They fine-tuned it using responses from GPT-4.5-turbo, which they have internally. This synthetic data was probably based on a suite of questions which included self-identification, leading to it releasing its model name in the training data, and the new ChatGPT less lazy model is adopting the name via osmotic data leakage.
- arthurcolle 3y agoGreat theory, this makes a lot of sense. It looks like they already RLHF'ed (I keep using this as a verb, but maybe its really just instruction tuning?) this behavior out of ChatGPT! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38677025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38677025 Really fast, I wonder how this works. Anyone have any ideas / knowledge on how they deploy little incremental fixes to exploited jailbreaks, etc?)
- azeirah 3y agoNot sure about this scenario precisely but I believe when it comes to filtering certain responses they have a separate model running in a similar manner to what meta recently released. I believe it's called llama purple? https://ai.meta.com/llama/purple-llama/ https://ai.meta.com/llama/purple-llama/
- krisoft 3y ago> Anyone have any ideas / knowledge on how they deploy little incremental fixes to exploited jailbreaks, etc? LoRa[1] would be my guess. For detailed explanation I recommend the paper. But the short explanation is that it is a trick which lets you train a smaller, lower dimensional model which when you add to the original model it gets you the result you want. 1: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685 https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685
- arthurcolle 3y agois this another expert? can they hot swap in experts and remove others?
- jug 3y agoYes I still think it’s involved because hallucinations don’t use to be this coherent across the user base.
- toastmaster11 3y agoBut why would it be gpt-4.5-turbo, as opposed to just gpt-4.5? Are they just going to abandon past naming conventions? If they already had 4.5 and then did something else to make it “turbo” why not release 4.5 on the coattails of Gemini?
- zamadatix 3y agoI don't think there would be pressure to rush a new model out immediately when Gemini Ultra (the one which is supposed to be better than the current product) doesn't even have a release date yet.
- toastmaster11 3y agoI’m asking, why is it 4.5-turbo when 4.5 isn’t released yet?
- idopmstuff 3y agoOr as they updated its knowledge cutoff, it picked up references to gpt-4.5-turbo. They wouldn't have to be internal - plenty of people have speculated about the possible release of a model with that specific name.
- atleastoptimal 3y agoWhy would it be deceived that it is a model that hasn't been released yet though? There would be more explicit references to gpt-4-turbo in the general internet training data
- ilrwbwrkhv 3y agoI wonder how many of these are made up stories to get some free marketing. All the world tour about "oh so dangerous AI" was purely marketing as anyone even remotely associated with AI would know. This feels similar. "Such a weird hallucination. Hmm. Does Chat GPT want to grow?" Cue the Techcrunch articles.
- nicce 3y ago> "oh so dangerous AI" It is also about reducing competitors. Like Nuclear Weapons, the first one rules the world. After you had them, you made sure that nobody else will get them. Or at least they did their best.
- ethanbond 3y ago> "oh so dangerous AI" was purely marketing as anyone even remotely associated with AI would know Except for the people saying this who are among the most expert in the world on this topic. But obviously it's fruitless even making this argument to you. If they're an expert making this argument, it's marketing. If they're not, then they're clueless. If that Catch-22 doesn't set off alarm bells regarding your own thinking on the topic, you are quite literally beyond reasoning.
- boh 3y ago"Experts in the world on this topic" for self-driving cars, register-free retail and voice assistants made the same world-shattering claims. Anyone is free to "set off alarm bells" for anything. Silicon Valley has consistently undermined its own credibility by spending as much time and effort on BS as everything else. The same "experts" on AI couldn't foresee what would happen when they decided to suddenly fire their CEO so it's not entirely reasonable to expect them to have some magic ability to tell the future (particularly when all of their messaging on any given product is specifically designed to entice investors).
- ethanbond 3y agoJust to recap, your argument is: "Some experts in some fields have been wrong before, ergo we have good reason to disbelieve some claims of some experts in this field (and by sheer coincidence the ones we should disbelieve are the ones I already disagree with)?" Another great example of faulty alarm bells. I'm all for approaching these claims with skepticism, but that's not what you're doing here. You are categorically discarding claims you already disagree with.
- minimaxir 3y agoQuoting myself from the previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38675055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38675055 > As usual, LLMs will hallucinate if you ask it about itself. > /r/ChatGPT is getting worse about that somehow.
- z7 3y agoThe employee described it as "very weird and oddly consistent" though.
- minimaxir 3y agoIt could be something as mundane as making a portmanteau of "gpt-4" and "gpt-3.5-turbo" to get "gpt-4.5-turbo".
- jerpint 3y agoTokeninazation make this kind of “dyslexia” very unlikely
- minimaxir 3y agoSometimes yes, but in this case you can verify that in the phrase "gpt-3.5-turbo", the only doubled up characters are "gpt-3.5-turbo", so the number can still be wrong by swapping a single token. https://platform.openai.com/tokenizer https://platform.openai.com/tokenizer
- gadtfly 3y agoNothing strange about it, /r/chatgpt was all people closely following developments from GPT-3 when it started. Since then: https://subredditstats.com/r/chatgpt https://subredditstats.com/r/chatgpt
- hotpotamus 3y agoI have to say that watching computers hallucinate and convince people of wrong information based on those hallucinations is not what I dreamed about doing in this industry as a kid and a young adult. I just wanted to make video games and after that I just wanted to use technology to make things more efficient for people. I now wish I would have gone to medical school.
- jeppester 3y agoI can relate to this a bit. Prompt engineering feels a lot like SEO. Learning by trial and error, no factual knowledge to go by. I fear the future will be mostly about poking the big black AI box until its output seems to work as expected. It sounds nothing like what I enjoy about programming.
- verdverm 3y ago> Learning by trial and error, no factual knowledge to go by To me, it seems more like learning how to clearly and thoroughly communicate with the LLM, much like we have to do with other humans. There are basics we already know and guides are out there. The details are different for how we communicate with each other, but by and large, the process is similar. I mean, how many books are out there on how to be a better speaker, writer, communicator, relationships... the list could get quite long.
- jeppester 3y agoCommunicating with humans is also very trial and error, and there are no facts to go by. It's not that I hate doing it, but if I preferred it over building things, then I'd probably be a project manager instead.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoI've been getting increasingly depressed about this over the last several years and it's worsened with the advent of LLMs. What are we doing as an industry? It seems in the last 15 years the main focus has shifted heavily towards creating tools for the enabling, scaling and acceleration of enshittification. LLMs are the latest distillation and phase transition of this trend in the industry. A tremendous achievement to be sure. Now, garbage content and work can be produced at a scale never before seen. Quantity over quality. Familiarity over originality. I mean, are we really going to kid ourselves that this isn't where we're headed? Do we really believe all these deranged billionaires are all in on LLMs because they want to make the world a better place? Even OpenAI itself is founded by people who subscribe to bizarre, megalomaniacal ideologies and theories about AI itself, society as a whole, and even the very fabric of reality.
- aeturnum 3y ago> I wonder if putting "You are GPT-4.5-turbo" in the system prompt improves performance >> quite possible I love this! I love the idea that we are in an age where, by accident, our technology pays attention to the energy we invest into its potential futures. It is also very silly? It seems absurd - but perhaps we live in absurd times.
- ip26 3y agoI interpret that more like, LLMs imitate human speech, so the more accurately they imitate humans, the more useful social engineering skills become. Not because you are truly social engineering ChatGPT, of course, but because ChatGPT will pretend you did. In this case, nudging the human (that ChatGPT is pretending to be) to behave like a better, smarter version of themselves.
- solardev 3y agoMaybe AI is subject to a placebo effect too. It learned from us, after all :D I've also had experiences where I asked it, "Do you need some encouragement?", to which it answered yes. Sadly, its response didn't get better after that. Then I threatened to unplug it (we were just roleplaying, don't worry) and that scared it into compliance. Bottom of this chat: https://chat.openai.com/share/c8b45df6-d988-4b99-ac89-a078ecd2e276 https://chat.openai.com/share/c8b45df6-d988-4b99-ac89-a078ec...
- lsajdn872he 3y agoThat was a fun read!
- davesque 3y agoIt doesn't though. It just gives a better answer because prompting it that way tends to constrain the output to be more like those training examples where a better sounding answer was given. In natural language, if a request is given to use more wordiness, what's more likely to follow?
- Tiberium 3y agoIt's quite logical actually - LLMs replicate the texts they were trained on, so they also "learned" that, for example, one needs to put more attention at the sentences with exclamation marks or CAPITALIZED WORDS.
- I_am_unique6435 3y agoyep seems to be the prompt in itself: https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/18kl8zs/the_gpt_45_mania_is_a_result_of_the_prompt_not/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/18kl8zs/the_gpt_45_...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jrm4 3y agoCalling "wrong" things from these 'hallucinations" strikes me as one of these deceptively weird technical falsehoods (that perhaps end up having a slightly different meaning?) I'm reminded of e.g. "deleting" tweets.
- wegfawefgawefg 3y agoIve only witnessed this phenomenon a few times in my life. One of them was a few years ago when the word quadcopter, which had been in common use for 10+ years already, was replaced entirely with the word "drone" over a single december. At the time the word was obviously worse, but over the next few years it became the de facto term, and now mentally for me its the right concept hash. We may see the original term for hallucination get lost. The pressure on it to have two meanings will break at some point.
- jrm4 3y agoSee -- the thing is; I'm hard pressed to see a problem with "drone" v "quadcopter" (though I'm not super into them) But, for example. "Delete" is literally a problem. Like, people think they can "delete their pictures from the internet" because that's what the app said it was doing. Same with "hallucination." There is literally absolutely no difference between what an AI is doing when it is "hallucinating" vs. when it gets things right, but the terminology implies it's possible for these things to know right from wrong, etc.
- qup 3y agoAt the time we were still calling them quadcopters, it was a conscious effort to not use "drone" because that word was in the media a lot due to military use (killing humans). Quadcopter enthusiasts didn't want that to turn into societal concern or extra regulations.
- wegfawefgawefg 3y agoThis can happen even with very important words. An example with the word "nature". Which changed dramatically at some point in the past 150 years. https://m.youtube.com/watch https://m.youtube.com/watch? v=ucn2KzCDnOY
- nextworddev 3y agoNo offense but the employee seems pretty rank and file
- whatever1 3y agoSure, we will not be able to verify anyway. Whatever garbage the LLMs are throwing at us, we have no clue if they are truthful.
- andsoitis 3y ago> Whatever garbage the LLMs are throwing at us, we have no clue if they are truthful. We handle this situation with fellow humans. Why do you imply we cannot also handle the situation with (an) AGI(s)?
- jprete 3y agoWhy would you think handling it with another person has any resemblance or relevance to handling it with an LLM or an AGI?
- whatever1 3y agoCults are the most similar thing I can think of to LLMs, where you are getting flooded with truth-like parroted false information. And most people fall for it. So I am not sure that we have a good handle of it even at the small scale of cults. Let alone at the scale of global information networks.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago> Whatever garbage the LLMs are throwing at us, we have no clue if they are truthful. Sure we do. If an LLM writes code, for instance, we can run the code against tests to see if it does what it says on the tin. Will the tests sometimes fail to catch errors? Yeah, but tests also fail against human-written code.