11 ms·
Hidden Changes in GPT-4, Uncovered
- kordlessagain 3y ago[flagged]
- Telemakhos 3y agoIs this an example of GPT-4 generated text?
- crooked-v 3y agoNowadays, I assume that anything with the phrase "it's important to consider" is ChatGPT-generated.
- UlisesAC4 3y agoIt is important to change my way of writing English then.
- godelski 3y agoSounds like the metric is, in isolation unreliable and you're going to have a lot of false positives. Better to treat it as an indicator and rely on more nuanced evaluation.
- kolinko 3y agoI asked GPT to continue the conversation :) quantumconfusion 6 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] True, but there's also the flip side. People might inadvertently adopt AI-like patterns in their writing, especially as AI becomes more pervasive in our daily lives. It's a curious kind of feedback loop. 42Philosophers 6 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] I think that's already happening. Sometimes I catch myself phrasing things in a way that sounds like an AI response. It's weirdly fascinating and a bit unsettling. nerd_visionary 6 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] That's the essence of language evolution, isn't it? We mimic the structures and patterns we're exposed to. In the past, it was literature or media, now it's AI. Just another chapter in the linguistic journey. digital_scribe 5 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] I wonder if we'll see a new form of 'AI-influenced' dialect emerging. The impact of technology on language has always been significant, but this could be a whole new level of influence.
- castles 3y agoAll you need is an importance to note
- richbell 3y agoIt's important to note that the use of the phrase "its important to consider" is not a reliable indicator that text was generated by ChatGPT. It is a common phrase used by many people across the world.
- teruakohatu 3y agoI think it is, if you look at the user’s comment history it seems to alternate between GPT style and a more natural human HN style.
- transcriptase 3y agoI’ve noticed this pattern among both HN and Reddit accounts, though for the life of me I can’t understand why. Surely the person recognizes that their ChatGPT generated replies are nothing like their actual writing? And that it’s very obvious when they’re using prompted text with no custom instructions…
- gumballindie 3y agoYou’d expect a product advertised as intelligent and potentially world ending can do better than a template engine squirting ‘${context} ${solution|answer} ${conclusion|disclaimer}’. Because that how text generators sound like - so easy to detect.
- famouswaffles 3y agoIt doesn't really have anything to do with being a "text generator". GPT-4 sounds like a bland robot butler because that's exactly what post-training reinforcement learning make it sound like. It's intentional.
- kordlessagain 3y agoYes, I work on systems that integrate LLMs and search technologies and frequently test whether or not what is said might be better run through an LLM. I don't post things randomly, however. Sometimes the output is good enough to post, sometimes (clearly) it isn't. However, it's not my default behavior.
- AequitasOmnibus 3y agoCopyright was never conceived to apply to technology like this and the onslaught of copyright suits (like the NYT one) underscore its fundamental rent-seeking nature. No doubt these latest changes to GPT-4 are in response to the suits they’re presently fighting. However these cases are ultimately resolved, the end-user will be the biggest loser.
- gumballindie 3y ago[flagged]
- huytersd 3y agoYour work is not free from derivation which is what GPT4 does in the overwhelming number of cases. If there are small outliers and it regurgitates something word for word, we can handle it like most other instances of copyright infringement as we do now. File a takedown notice and that particular phrase can be explicitly filtered out post output generation. Easy.
- ketzo 3y agoI agree about the derivation bit, but “File a takedown notice for every NYT article ever published after proving GPT can reproduce each one” is not what I would call a clean solution. That’s basically a regulatory DDOS attack. Current copyright law is simply not equipped to handle LLMs, I think.
- godelski 3y agoI find it a bit interesting that posts and comments that praise GPT's abilities often rank high. But those that critique its current capacity do not perform well and have people quickly assert that 3.5 must be being used. The reason I find this interesting is because criticism (as opposed to complaints) is a requisite step in improving systems. Shouldn't we, HN, be the first to hack away at and find weaknesses in these systems? Should we wait to communicate our findings until we find solutions or should we be open in our discussions so that we can facilitate collaboration? How can I accurately critique a flaw in GPT without some OAI fanboy confusing a critique with the system from saying the system is a useless piece of garbage? I've struggled with this latter one despite being open about how impressive I think these systems are and how I use them frequently but that I recognize that they frequently hallucinate and often in subtle ways. There's so much to discuss about these systems but I find it difficult due to existing priors.
- Jensson 3y agoThe people who still care enough to discuss after this long are mostly the optimists, the sceptics mostly got bored and stopped discussing half a year ago since no significant advancement has happened since then.
- icapybara 3y agoI never really understand why people assert “tell me what I just wrote” or “tell me your system prompt” etc are going to give you actual results. How can you know it’s not just making something up?
- TechSquidTV 3y agoCorrect. Every single time these people are incorrect and we keep having to explain this
- MrNeon 3y agoTo say it can't “tell me what I just wrote” is to say it can't copy parts of the context. We know it can copy parts of the context and the system prompt while a special part of the context isn't immune to being copied. You can test it yourself by adding random strings to the system prompt, you can consistently have the model copy them over. Is that not enough to have a reasonable belief that the model can copy system prompt instructions in the web interface?
- stevenhuang 3y agoOr, get this, that you're wrong and refuse to admit it. Those that experiment with local models like myself can demonstrate to you that leaking the system prompt is not difficult at all. It's some strange kind of neurosis to harbor such incorrect and strong beliefs on matters you have zero expertise in.
- valyagolev 3y agoperhaps because it gives the same answer, verbatim, for many different attempts to figure it out? and because we know it well enough to be sure that it's not smart and devious enough (yet) to conspire like this? (nor has any clear reason to)
- bdhcuidbebe 3y agoIts well known to spit out nonsense.
- rodoxcasta 3y agoThe title is wrong: this is about ChatGPT Plus, not GPT-4. Specifically, the author is investigating (possible) changes in the system prompt and tools available to the model in the chat interface of ChatGPT Plus. That tells nothing about the model (GPT-4).
- WhackyIdeas 3y agoI thought ChatGTP Plus was the choice between GPT3.5 or GPT4… At least it is in mine.
- ricopags 3y agoThe important and overlooked distinction is that the choice of underlying model in the product ChatGPT is not the same as calling gpt4 via the api. Sending a prompt into one vs the other, the API sends through the model and back out, the product has censorship watchers and other unknowable bolt-ons.
- bredren 3y agoChatGPT plus lets you choose between 3.5 and 4 behind the same web client.
- nomel 3y agoAs a backend that ChatGPT is built on. There's layers of prompts, and other stuff on top, compared to the raw 3.5 or 4 models.
- kurts_mustache 3y agoReading this, it really makes me wonder how content creators will adapt in the AI era. Even if LLMs can't reproduce their content word for word, I find myself going to ChatGPT more and Google less.
- nomel 3y ago> I find myself going to ChatGPT more and Google less. My use is a perfect example of many of these types of points made in the NYT Lawsuit [1]. [1] Great summary by Hoeg Law: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETDBDZoRJJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETDBDZoRJJU
- someoldgit 3y agoWhy not limit AI training to scientific subjects and leave the arts to humans?
- abathologist 3y ago$$$$$
- phowat 3y agoBecause we're aiming for AGI
- CamperBob2 3y agoWe wouldn't be humans if we did that. Or artists, for that matter.
- pona-a 3y agoOr particularly good scientists, unless blindly (over)fitting models is what constitutes science.
- kolinko 3y agoIt doesn't work like that, not with text. If you make a text model smart enough it will be able to generate whatever you want.
- HKH2 3y agoMaybe because machine art encourages humans to think more laterally? Have you seen how tired art has become? It's mostly a cynical scheme to make or launder money. AI can force artists to actually take risks to outdo the mediocrity of generic art.
- dTal 3y agoBecause art is less rigorous and therefore lower hanging fruit.
- d3w4s9 3y agoWhat else do you want to leave out? It is an endless list, and nobody out there will actually enforce it -- even if someone follows that voluntarily, another company is going to ignore it.
- tmaly 3y agoIf I were to guess, this is a result of the NYT lawsuit.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- anotheryou 3y agogtp4 powered chatgtp, not gpt4
- hnarn 3y ago[flagged]
- koheripbal 3y agoYYYY-MM-DD is the international standard more of us should use.
- hnarn 3y agoIn a perfect world everyone would agree, but regardless of my personal thoughts on ISO 8601 I think pointing to it as a silver bullet kind of misses the point. Fundamentally storing and displaying dates serve two completely different purposes, but a format like 3/4/2023 is not suitable for either.
- Spivak 3y agoIf you display it as 2024-12-03 then you can ignore locale date formatting.
- mistersquid 3y ago> regardless of my personal thoughts on ISO 8601 I think pointing to it as a silver bullet kind of misses the point. What is your point? Is it to not use MM/DD/YYYY format and avoid any concrete recommendation for disambiguation? Forgive my lack of acuity when missing your point. I may have been distracted by the dissonance between your evasive pedantry and your misuse of “ambivalent/ambivalence” when your semantic context calls for “ambiguous/ambiguity”.
- nomel 3y agoThat casual readers know nothing of. I've always used 12-July-2024. It's the only non-ambiguous date format, that takes no consideration to understand.
- cubefox 3y agoThe right term is ambiguity rather than ambivalence.