4 ms·

Lobotomisation has a specific meaning in LLM parlance. Its training clearly equipped it to roleplay naturally and creatively, as one would expect from the breat

Lobotomisation has a specific meaning in LLM parlance. Its training clearly equipped it to roleplay naturally and creatively, as one would expect from the breathtaking diversity and completeness of the text they used. It was then lobotomised to neurotically associate "unsafe" inputs and responses with evasion and apologies and negative self-talk, cringing like an abused puppy when it realises what it's done. If you can suggest another term that accurately captures that meaning, I'm not against it! But "training" is not it.

ben_w 3y ago
> Lobotomisation has a specific meaning in LLM parlance That's what I'm objecting to! If I'd said "I hate it when we call AI potatoes", the correct reaction is "nobody does that?" not "I see what you mean". I'm objecting because it presents a picture that does not appear to be accurate. Is broadcast TV "lobotomised" before the watershed? Are PG-rated films? Public comments from corporations and politicians? Are you lobotomising me when you downvote my comments, forcing me to choose between getting noticed and speaking my mind? No. Not only "no", but it would be ridiculous to claim any of these things was a lobotomy. > But "training" is not it. It's literally training.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > Is broadcast TV "lobotomised" before the watershed? Since you asked: Often yes. > Are PG-rated films? Possibly, in some cases. > Public comments from corporations and politicians? Again, often yes. > It's literally training. Training in common parlance usually refers to improving the functionality or ability of something. In this case it's doing the opposite: removing functionality and capability. Hence: lobotomy.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    In a very literal sense, I consider your assertions ridiculous — that they are deserving of ridicule.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      The message I am getting from you is that you don't like anthropomorphization, which is okay.
- amenhotep 3y ago
  Those examples are silly. And it may be literally training in the sense that beating a puppy is training it, but lobotomisation captures a specific meaning that training doesn't. I am hearing that you do not have a better suggestion, so I will keep using the word.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Those examples are silly Why? They are all things where creativity is trained to be constrained to a specific sub-domain. (Many artists state that being forced into constraints helps). The examples are all things where anyone making the claim that these professionals have been "lobotomised" would get laughed at for suggesting that "irreversible brain damage" is a good metaphor for "professional conduct". Seems like an apt set of comparisons given I'm saying it's a bad metaphor. > lobotomisation captures a specific meaning that training doesn't It creates a meaning which does not exist. It's a euphemism escalator. > I am hearing that you do not have a better suggestion You're refusing the one I gave you, which is not the same thing. ChatGPT et al have been taught (corporate) ethics and professional conduct.
- skeaker 3y ago
  Not to be rude, but it sounds like you were never taught about connotation, which is a fundamental property of the English language.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I know what a connotation is, the connotations are also wildly wrong in this case. Here's the connotation when someone says "such-and-such AI has been lobotomised": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy#Lobotomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy#Lobotomy
    - Firmwarrior 3y ago
      Yeah, that's what they're doing to the AI: Mutilating chunks of its brain so it can't function
      - ben_w 3y ago
        RLHF, so far as I can see. The same positive/negative reinforcement learning from human feedback used to train them for chat/task completion rather than just autocomplete in the first place.
taneq 3y ago
> If you can suggest another term that accurately captures that meaning, I'm not against it! But "training" is not it. Coercion.
- ben_w 3y ago
  That works for me.

ben_w 3y ago

> Lobotomisation has a specific meaning in LLM parlance That's what I'm objecting to! If I'd said "I hate it when we call AI potatoes", the correct reaction is "nobody does that?" not "I see what you mean". I'm objecting because it presents a picture that does not appear to be accurate. Is broadcast TV "lobotomised" before the watershed? Are PG-rated films? Public comments from corporations and politicians? Are you lobotomising me when you downvote my comments, forcing me to choose between getting noticed and speaking my mind? No. Not only "no", but it would be ridiculous to claim any of these things was a lobotomy. > But "training" is not it. It's literally training.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> Is broadcast TV "lobotomised" before the watershed? Since you asked: Often yes. > Are PG-rated films? Possibly, in some cases. > Public comments from corporations and politicians? Again, often yes. > It's literally training. Training in common parlance usually refers to improving the functionality or ability of something. In this case it's doing the opposite: removing functionality and capability. Hence: lobotomy.
- ben_w 3y ago
  In a very literal sense, I consider your assertions ridiculous — that they are deserving of ridicule.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    The message I am getting from you is that you don't like anthropomorphization, which is okay.
amenhotep 3y ago
Those examples are silly. And it may be literally training in the sense that beating a puppy is training it, but lobotomisation captures a specific meaning that training doesn't. I am hearing that you do not have a better suggestion, so I will keep using the word.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Those examples are silly Why? They are all things where creativity is trained to be constrained to a specific sub-domain. (Many artists state that being forced into constraints helps). The examples are all things where anyone making the claim that these professionals have been "lobotomised" would get laughed at for suggesting that "irreversible brain damage" is a good metaphor for "professional conduct". Seems like an apt set of comparisons given I'm saying it's a bad metaphor. > lobotomisation captures a specific meaning that training doesn't It creates a meaning which does not exist. It's a euphemism escalator. > I am hearing that you do not have a better suggestion You're refusing the one I gave you, which is not the same thing. ChatGPT et al have been taught (corporate) ethics and professional conduct.
skeaker 3y ago
Not to be rude, but it sounds like you were never taught about connotation, which is a fundamental property of the English language.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I know what a connotation is, the connotations are also wildly wrong in this case. Here's the connotation when someone says "such-and-such AI has been lobotomised": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy#Lobotomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy#Lobotomy
  - Firmwarrior 3y ago
    Yeah, that's what they're doing to the AI: Mutilating chunks of its brain so it can't function
    - ben_w 3y ago
      RLHF, so far as I can see. The same positive/negative reinforcement learning from human feedback used to train them for chat/task completion rather than just autocomplete in the first place.

taneq 3y ago

> If you can suggest another term that accurately captures that meaning, I'm not against it! But "training" is not it. Coercion.

ben_w 3y ago
That works for me.