4 ms·

"recognizing prompts that cannot be solely interpreted by semantics" Humans certainly don't interpret language solely by semantics—why is this considered a fla

"recognizing prompts that cannot be solely interpreted by semantics" Humans certainly don't interpret language solely by semantics—why is this considered a flaw in chatbots?

LoganDark 3y ago
Because of safety alignment. The way safety alignment is imposed on humans is a lot different than the way that specific conversations are trained into LLMs - a human would be able to reject unprofessional or inappropriate requests no matter how it's communicated (semantically or no), but there are ways to trick a chatbot into doing it that are considered flaws.
- DinaCoder99 3y ago
  "Safety" is really a weird term for "bad pr for corporate software". It has nothing to do with safety as it's in any other context. Talk about speaking without mutually intelligible semantics! Unfortunately, this pretty much destroys anything useful about chatbots to most humans outside of automating tasks useful to corporate environments.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    Preaching to the choir. "Alignment" has no place in base models, or even base chat models.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > "Safety" is really a weird term for "bad pr for corporate software". Not only but also. > It has nothing to do with safety as it's in any other context. Talk about speaking without mutually intelligible semantics! Why should it? This is a new context. Though you're correct about mutual intelligibility. > Unfortunately, this pretty much destroys anything useful about chatbots to most humans outside of automating tasks useful to corporate environments. Corporate environments necessarily covers basically all of the economy, so I don't see the problem here.
    - DinaCoder99 3y ago
      > Corporate environments necessarily covers basically all of the economy No, it only covers the corporate (ie taxable, market) economy, which does not encapsulate most material human interactions
      - ben_w 3y ago
        Still have no idea what you're getting at, your world model is too different to mine for a one sentence retort to bridge the gap. The economy is why we go to school, where our stuff is made, and where we get the money with which to buy it rent that stuff — It very much is the material part of our interactions. As that's also one sentence, I'm expecting you to be as confused as I still am.
        DinaCoder99 3y ago
        Look I don't disagree, but i thought we were discussing Corporate LLMs—chatbots made in service of private equity and capital.
        ben_w 3y ago
        I'm not sure why you think that, given the paper being linked to was co-published by people from four universities and apparently no corporations? LLMs are much broader than I think you think they are; even the most famous one, ChatGPT, is mostly a research thing that surprised its creators by being fun for the public — and one of its ancestors, GPT-2, was already being treated as "potentially dangerous just in case" for basically the same reasons they're still giving for 3.5 and 4 even before OpenAI changed their corporate structure to allow for-profit investment.
        DinaCoder99 3y ago
        > I'm not sure why you think that, given the paper being linked to was co-published by people from four universities and apparently no corporations? That doesn't imply their work doesn't also serve capital and private equity, which it trivially does. Otherwise their definition of terms would be meaningful to the median human.
  - INGSOCIALITE 3y ago
    “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” -George Orwell, 1984 "safety" in the AI world is just "the party" having full control over the flow of information to the masses. there is no difference between AI "safety" and book burning.

"recognizing prompts that cannot be solely interpreted by semantics" Humans certainly don't interpret language solely by semantics—why is this considered a flaw in chatbots?

LoganDark 3y ago

Because of safety alignment. The way safety alignment is imposed on humans is a lot different than the way that specific conversations are trained into LLMs - a human would be able to reject unprofessional or inappropriate requests no matter how it's communicated (semantically or no), but there are ways to trick a chatbot into doing it that are considered flaws.

DinaCoder99 3y ago
"Safety" is really a weird term for "bad pr for corporate software". It has nothing to do with safety as it's in any other context. Talk about speaking without mutually intelligible semantics! Unfortunately, this pretty much destroys anything useful about chatbots to most humans outside of automating tasks useful to corporate environments.
- LoganDark 3y ago
  Preaching to the choir. "Alignment" has no place in base models, or even base chat models.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > "Safety" is really a weird term for "bad pr for corporate software". Not only but also. > It has nothing to do with safety as it's in any other context. Talk about speaking without mutually intelligible semantics! Why should it? This is a new context. Though you're correct about mutual intelligibility. > Unfortunately, this pretty much destroys anything useful about chatbots to most humans outside of automating tasks useful to corporate environments. Corporate environments necessarily covers basically all of the economy, so I don't see the problem here.
  - DinaCoder99 3y ago
    > Corporate environments necessarily covers basically all of the economy No, it only covers the corporate (ie taxable, market) economy, which does not encapsulate most material human interactions
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Still have no idea what you're getting at, your world model is too different to mine for a one sentence retort to bridge the gap. The economy is why we go to school, where our stuff is made, and where we get the money with which to buy it rent that stuff — It very much is the material part of our interactions. As that's also one sentence, I'm expecting you to be as confused as I still am.
      - DinaCoder99 3y ago
        Look I don't disagree, but i thought we were discussing Corporate LLMs—chatbots made in service of private equity and capital.
        ben_w 3y ago
        I'm not sure why you think that, given the paper being linked to was co-published by people from four universities and apparently no corporations? LLMs are much broader than I think you think they are; even the most famous one, ChatGPT, is mostly a research thing that surprised its creators by being fun for the public — and one of its ancestors, GPT-2, was already being treated as "potentially dangerous just in case" for basically the same reasons they're still giving for 3.5 and 4 even before OpenAI changed their corporate structure to allow for-profit investment.
        DinaCoder99 3y ago
        > I'm not sure why you think that, given the paper being linked to was co-published by people from four universities and apparently no corporations? That doesn't imply their work doesn't also serve capital and private equity, which it trivially does. Otherwise their definition of terms would be meaningful to the median human.
- INGSOCIALITE 3y ago
  “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” -George Orwell, 1984 "safety" in the AI world is just "the party" having full control over the flow of information to the masses. there is no difference between AI "safety" and book burning.