10 ms·

Occam's razor: there is no secret sauce and they're afraid someone trains a model on the output like what happened soon after the release of GPT-4. They basical

by qsort 2y ago

Occam's razor: there is no secret sauce and they're afraid someone trains a model on the output like what happened soon after the release of GPT-4. They basically said as much in the official announcement, you hardly even have to read between the lines.

tim333 2y ago
Another possible simplest explanation. The "we cannot train any policy compliance ... onto the chain of thought" is true and they are worried about politically incorrect stuff coming out and another publicity mess like Google's black nazis. I could see user:"how do we stop destroying the planet?", ai-think:"well, we could wipe out the humans and replace them with AIs".. "no that's against my instructions".. AI-output:"switch to green energy"... Daily Mail:"OpenAI Computers Plan to KILL all humans!"
mjburgess 2y ago
Yip. It's pretty obvious this 'innovation' is just based off training data collected from chain-of-thought prompting by people, ie., the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset of people repairing chatgpt's lack of reasoning capabilities. No wonder then, that many of the benchmarks they've tested on would be no doubt, in that very training dataset, repaired expertly by people running those benchmarks on chatgpt. There's nothing really to 'expose' here.
- bugglebeetle 2y ago
  > the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset Yeah, that’s called machine learning.
  - mjburgess 2y ago
    You may want to file a complaint with OpenAI then, in their latest interface they call sampling from these prior conversations they've recorded, "thinking".
    - accountnum 2y ago
      They're not sampling from prior conversations. The model constructs abstracted representations of the domain-specific reasoning traces. Then it applies these reasoning traces in various combinations to solve unseen problems. If you want to call that sampling, then you might as well call everything sampling.
      - mjburgess 2y ago
        They're generative models. By definition, they are sampling from a joint distribution of text tokens fit by approximation to an empirical distribution.
        accountnum 2y ago
        Again, you're stretching definitions into meaninglessness. The way you are using "sampling" and "distribution" here applies to any system processing any information. Yes, humans as well. I can trivially define the entirety of all nerve impulses reaching and exiting your brain as a "distribution" in your usage of the term. And then all possible actions and experiences are just "sampling" that "distribution" as well. But that definition is meaningless.
        mjburgess 2y ago
        No, causation isnt distribution sampling. And there's a difference between, say, an extrinsic description of a system and it's essential properties. Eg., you can describe a coin flip as a sampling from the space, {H,T} -- but insofar as we're talking about an actual coin, there's a causal mechanism -- and this description fails (eg., one can design a coin flipper to deterministically flip to heads). In the case of a transformer model, and all generative statistical models, these are actually learning distributions. The model is essentially constituted by a fit to a prior distribution. And when computing a model output, it is sampling from this fit distribution. ie., the relevant state of the graphics card which computes an output token is fully described by an equation which is a sampling from an empirical distribution (of prior text tokens). Your nervous system is a causal mechanism which is not fully described by sampling from this outcome space. There is no where in your body that stores all possible bodily states in an outcome space: this space would require more atoms in the universe to store. So this isn't the case for any causal mechanism. Reality itself comprises essential properties which interact with each other in ways that cannot be reduced to sampling. Statistical models are therefore never models of reality essentially, but basically circumstantial approximations. I'm not stretching definitions into meaninglessness, these are the ones given by AI researchers, of which I am one.
- DiscourseFan 2y ago
  It seems like the best AI models are increasingly just combinations of writings of various people thrown together. Like they hired a few hundred professors, journalists and writers to work with the model and create material for it, so you just get various combinations of their contributions. It's very telling that this model, for instance, is extraordinarily good at STEM related queries, but much worse (and worse even in comparison to GPT4) than English composition, probably because the former is where the money is to be made, in automating away essentially almost all engineering jobs.
  - GaggiX 2y ago
    Do you have a source about OpenAI hiring a few hundred professors, journalists and writers? Because I honestly doubt.
    - mattkrause 2y ago
      A few recruiters have contacted me (a scientist) about doing RLHF and annotation on biomedical tasks. I don’t know if the eventual client was OpenAI or some other LLM provider but they seemed to have money to burn.
      - vidarh 2y ago
        I fill in gaps in my contracting with one of these providers, and I know who the ultimate client is, and if you were to list 4-5 options they'd be in there. I've also done work for another company doing work in this space that had at least 4-5 different clients in that space that I can't be sure about. So, yes, while I can't confirm if OpenAI does this, I know one of the big players do, and it's likely most of the other clients are among the top ones...
    - tough 2y ago
      Just all their chatgpt customers
    - COAGULOPATH 2y ago
      I've heard rumors that GPT4's training data included "a custom dataset of college textbooks", curated by hand. Nothing beyond that. https://www.reddit.com/r/mlscaling/comments/14wcy7m/comment/jrir37r/ https://www.reddit.com/r/mlscaling/comments/14wcy7m/comment/...
- GaggiX 2y ago
  >the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset of people repairing chatgpt's lack of reasoning capabilities. I think there is a really strong reinforcement learning component with the training of this model and how it has learned to perform the chain of thought.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
    Yes, but I suspect that the goals of the RL (in order to reason, we need to be able to "break down tricky steps into simpler ones", etc) were hand chosen, then a training set demonstrating these reasoning capabilities/components was constructed to match.
- mlsu 2y ago
  I would be dying to know how they square these product decisions against their corporate charter internally. From the charter: > We will actively cooperate with other research and policy institutions; we seek to create a global community working together to address AGI’s global challenges. > We are committed to providing public goods that help society navigate the path to AGI. Today this includes publishing most of our AI research, but we expect that safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the future, while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research. It's obvious to everyone in the room what they actually are, because their largest competitor actually does what they say their mission is here -- but most for-profit capitalist enterprises definitely do not have stuff like this in their mission statement. I'm not even mad or sad, the ship sailed long ago. I just really want to know what things are like in there. If you're the manager who is making this decision, what mental gymnastics are you doing to justify this to yourself and your colleagues? Is there any resistance left on the inside or did they all leave with Ilya?
- tivert 2y ago
  > Yip. It's pretty obvious this 'innovation' is just based off training data collected from chain-of-thought prompting by people, ie., the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset of people repairing chatgpt's lack of reasoning capabilities. Which would be ChatGPT chat logs, correct? It would be interesting if people started feeding ChatGPT deliberately bad repairs due it's "lack of reasoning capabilities" (e.g. get a local LLM setup with some response delays to simulate a human and just let it talk and talk and talk to ChatGPT), and see how it affects its behavior over the long run.
  - exe34 2y ago
    i suspect they can detect that in a similar way to capchas and "verify you're human by clicking the box".
    - tivert 2y ago
      > i suspect they can detect that in a similar way to capchas and "verify you're human by clicking the box". I'm not so sure. IIRC, capchas are pretty much a solved problem, if you don't mind the cost of a little bit of human interaction (e.g. your interface pops up a captcha solver box when necessary, and is solved either by the bot's operator or some professional captcha-solver in a low-wage country).
      - immibis 2y ago
        there are services that solve captchas automatically with above-human success rates
  - vidarh 2y ago
    These logs get manually reviewed by humans, sometimes annotated by automated systems first. The setups for manual reviews typically involve half a dozen steps with different people reviewing, comparing reviews, revising comparisons, and overseeing the revisions (source: I've done contract work at every stage of that process, have half a dozen internal documents for a company providing this service open right now). A lot of money is being pumped into automating parts of this, but a lot of money still also flows into manually reviewing and quality-assuring the whole process. Any logs showing significant quality declines would get picked up and filtered out pretty quickly.
- exe34 2y ago
  i think it's funny, every time you implement a clever solution to call gpt and get a decent answer, they get to use your idea in their product. what other project gets to crowdsource ideas and take credit for them like this? ps: actually maybe Amazon marketplace. probably others too.
  - solveit 2y ago
    Most projects with an active user-created mods community are heavily influenced by them.
  - egypturnash 2y ago
    "sherlocking" has been a thing since 2002, when Apple incorporated a bunch of third-party ideas for extending their "Sherlock" search tool into the official release. https://thehustle.co/sherlocking-explained https://thehustle.co/sherlocking-explained
  - immibis 2y ago
    Amazon definitely does this, to great effect.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  Do people really expect anything different? There is a ton of cross-pollination in Silicon Valley. Keeping these innovations completely under wraps would be akin to a massive conspiracy. A peacetime Manhattan Project where everyone has a smartphone, a Twitter presence, and sleeps in their own bed. Frankly I am even skeptical of US-China separation at the moment. If Chinese scientists at e.g. Huawei somehow came up with the secret sauce to AGI tomorrow, no research group is so far behind that they couldn’t catch up pretty quickly. We saw this with ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini before, none of which are light years ahead of another. Of course this could change in the future. This is actually among the best case scenarios for research. It means that a preemptive strike on data centers is still off the table for now. (Sorry Eleazar)
- sandspar 2y ago
  It's been out for 24 hours and you make an extremely confident and dismissive claim. If you had to make a dollar bet that you precisely understand what's happening under the hood, exactly how much money would you bet?
- golol 2y ago
  What are you basing this one? The one thing that is very clearly stated up front is that this innovation is based on reinforcement learning. You dok't even have a good idea what the CoT looks like because those little summary snippets that the ChatGPT UI gives you are nothing substantial.
  - mjburgess 2y ago
    People repairing chatgpt replies with additional prompts is reinforcement learning training data. "Reinforcement learning", just like any term used by AI researchers, is an extremely flexible, pseudo-psychological reskin of some pretty trivial stuff.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> there is no secret sauce and they're afraid someone trains a model on the output OpenAI is fundraising. The "stop us before we shoot Grandma" shtick has a proven track record: investors will fund something that sounds dangerous, because dangerous means powerful.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  Counterpoint, a place like Civit.AI is at least as dangerous, yet it's nowhere near as well funded.
  - herval 2y ago
    a website that literally just hosts models with $5m in funding is plenty. It's not like they're doing foundation model research or anything novel, yet they nabbed a good amount of money for surfing the AI wave
    - Der_Einzige 2y ago
      Pony diffusion imho qualifies as “foundation model research” and while it’s not directly Civit.AI, it’s indirectly them.
      - herval 2y ago
        This is like saying chatgpt is “indirectly” made by Reddit…
        Der_Einzige 2y ago
        It 100% is though, unironically.
        herval 2y ago
        If you say so
  - 2y ago
coliveira 2y ago
So, basically they want to create something that is intelligent, yet it is not allowed to share or teach any of this intelligence.... Seems to be something evil.
- lopatamd 2y ago
  [dead]
m3kw9 2y ago
Training is the secret sauce, 90% of the work is in getting the data setup/cleaned etc
rich_sasha 2y ago
That would be a heinous breach of license! Stealing the output of OpenAI's LLM, for which they worked so hard. Man, just scraping all the copyrighted learning material was so much work...
m3kw9 2y ago
Occam’s razor is overused and most times, wrongly, to explain everything. Maybe the simpler reason is because of what they explained.
- lackoftactics 2y ago
  Yep, I had a friend who overused it a lot. Like it was magic bullet for every problem. It’s not only about simple solution being better, it’s about not multiplying beings when that could be avoided. In here if you already have an answer from their side, you are multiplying beings by going with conspiracy theory that they have nothing
Nextgrid 2y ago
But isn’t it only accessible to “trusted” users and heavily rate-limited to the point where the total throughput of it could be replicated by a well-funded adversary just paying humans to replicate the output, and obviously orders of magnitude lower than what is needed for training a model?
contravariant 2y ago
As boring as it is that's probably the case. There is a weird intensity to the way they're hiding these chain of thought outputs though. I mean, to date I've not seen anything but carefully curated examples of it, and even those are rare (or rather there's only 1 that I'm aware of). So we're at the stage where: - You're paying for those intermediate tokens - According to OpenAI they provide invaluable insight in how the model performs - You're not going to be able to see them (ever?). - Those thoughts can (apparently) not be constrained for 'compliance' (which could be anything from preventing harm to avoiding blatant racism to protecting OpenAI's bottom line) - This is all based on hearsay from the people who did see those outputs and then hid it from everyone else. You've got to be at least curious at this point, surely?
xnx 2y ago
3 GPT-4 in a trenchcoat
golol 2y ago
Occam's razor is that what they literally say is maybe just true: They don't train any safety into the Chain of Thought and don't want the user to be exposed to "bad publicity" generations like slurs etc.
- jddj 2y ago
  What they said is they decided to hide it: > after weighing multiple factors including user experience, competitive advantage, and the option to pursue the chain of thought monitoring
effingwewt 2y ago
Stop using Occam's razor like some literal law. It's a stupid and lazy philosophical theory bandied about like some catch-all solution. Like when people say 'the definition of insanity is[some random BS] with a bullshit attribution[Albert Einstein said it!(He didn't)]
- mercer 2y ago
  it's stochastic parrots all the way down
trilbyglens 2y ago
Ironic for a company built on scraping and exploiting data used without permission...

by qsort 2y ago

tim333 2y ago

Another possible simplest explanation. The "we cannot train any policy compliance ... onto the chain of thought" is true and they are worried about politically incorrect stuff coming out and another publicity mess like Google's black nazis. I could see user:"how do we stop destroying the planet?", ai-think:"well, we could wipe out the humans and replace them with AIs".. "no that's against my instructions".. AI-output:"switch to green energy"... Daily Mail:"OpenAI Computers Plan to KILL all humans!"

mjburgess 2y ago

Yip. It's pretty obvious this 'innovation' is just based off training data collected from chain-of-thought prompting by people, ie., the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset of people repairing chatgpt's lack of reasoning capabilities. No wonder then, that many of the benchmarks they've tested on would be no doubt, in that very training dataset, repaired expertly by people running those benchmarks on chatgpt. There's nothing really to 'expose' here.

bugglebeetle 2y ago
> the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset Yeah, that’s called machine learning.
- mjburgess 2y ago
  You may want to file a complaint with OpenAI then, in their latest interface they call sampling from these prior conversations they've recorded, "thinking".
  - accountnum 2y ago
    They're not sampling from prior conversations. The model constructs abstracted representations of the domain-specific reasoning traces. Then it applies these reasoning traces in various combinations to solve unseen problems. If you want to call that sampling, then you might as well call everything sampling.
    - mjburgess 2y ago
      They're generative models. By definition, they are sampling from a joint distribution of text tokens fit by approximation to an empirical distribution.
      - accountnum 2y ago
        Again, you're stretching definitions into meaninglessness. The way you are using "sampling" and "distribution" here applies to any system processing any information. Yes, humans as well. I can trivially define the entirety of all nerve impulses reaching and exiting your brain as a "distribution" in your usage of the term. And then all possible actions and experiences are just "sampling" that "distribution" as well. But that definition is meaningless.
        mjburgess 2y ago
        No, causation isnt distribution sampling. And there's a difference between, say, an extrinsic description of a system and it's essential properties. Eg., you can describe a coin flip as a sampling from the space, {H,T} -- but insofar as we're talking about an actual coin, there's a causal mechanism -- and this description fails (eg., one can design a coin flipper to deterministically flip to heads). In the case of a transformer model, and all generative statistical models, these are actually learning distributions. The model is essentially constituted by a fit to a prior distribution. And when computing a model output, it is sampling from this fit distribution. ie., the relevant state of the graphics card which computes an output token is fully described by an equation which is a sampling from an empirical distribution (of prior text tokens). Your nervous system is a causal mechanism which is not fully described by sampling from this outcome space. There is no where in your body that stores all possible bodily states in an outcome space: this space would require more atoms in the universe to store. So this isn't the case for any causal mechanism. Reality itself comprises essential properties which interact with each other in ways that cannot be reduced to sampling. Statistical models are therefore never models of reality essentially, but basically circumstantial approximations. I'm not stretching definitions into meaninglessness, these are the ones given by AI researchers, of which I am one.
DiscourseFan 2y ago
It seems like the best AI models are increasingly just combinations of writings of various people thrown together. Like they hired a few hundred professors, journalists and writers to work with the model and create material for it, so you just get various combinations of their contributions. It's very telling that this model, for instance, is extraordinarily good at STEM related queries, but much worse (and worse even in comparison to GPT4) than English composition, probably because the former is where the money is to be made, in automating away essentially almost all engineering jobs.
- GaggiX 2y ago
  Do you have a source about OpenAI hiring a few hundred professors, journalists and writers? Because I honestly doubt.
  - mattkrause 2y ago
    A few recruiters have contacted me (a scientist) about doing RLHF and annotation on biomedical tasks. I don’t know if the eventual client was OpenAI or some other LLM provider but they seemed to have money to burn.
    - vidarh 2y ago
      I fill in gaps in my contracting with one of these providers, and I know who the ultimate client is, and if you were to list 4-5 options they'd be in there. I've also done work for another company doing work in this space that had at least 4-5 different clients in that space that I can't be sure about. So, yes, while I can't confirm if OpenAI does this, I know one of the big players do, and it's likely most of the other clients are among the top ones...
  - tough 2y ago
    Just all their chatgpt customers
  - COAGULOPATH 2y ago
    I've heard rumors that GPT4's training data included "a custom dataset of college textbooks", curated by hand. Nothing beyond that. https://www.reddit.com/r/mlscaling/comments/14wcy7m/comment/jrir37r/ https://www.reddit.com/r/mlscaling/comments/14wcy7m/comment/...
GaggiX 2y ago
>the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset of people repairing chatgpt's lack of reasoning capabilities. I think there is a really strong reinforcement learning component with the training of this model and how it has learned to perform the chain of thought.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
  Yes, but I suspect that the goals of the RL (in order to reason, we need to be able to "break down tricky steps into simpler ones", etc) were hand chosen, then a training set demonstrating these reasoning capabilities/components was constructed to match.
mlsu 2y ago
I would be dying to know how they square these product decisions against their corporate charter internally. From the charter: > We will actively cooperate with other research and policy institutions; we seek to create a global community working together to address AGI’s global challenges. > We are committed to providing public goods that help society navigate the path to AGI. Today this includes publishing most of our AI research, but we expect that safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the future, while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research. It's obvious to everyone in the room what they actually are, because their largest competitor actually does what they say their mission is here -- but most for-profit capitalist enterprises definitely do not have stuff like this in their mission statement. I'm not even mad or sad, the ship sailed long ago. I just really want to know what things are like in there. If you're the manager who is making this decision, what mental gymnastics are you doing to justify this to yourself and your colleagues? Is there any resistance left on the inside or did they all leave with Ilya?
tivert 2y ago
> Yip. It's pretty obvious this 'innovation' is just based off training data collected from chain-of-thought prompting by people, ie., the 'big leap forward' is just another dataset of people repairing chatgpt's lack of reasoning capabilities. Which would be ChatGPT chat logs, correct? It would be interesting if people started feeding ChatGPT deliberately bad repairs due it's "lack of reasoning capabilities" (e.g. get a local LLM setup with some response delays to simulate a human and just let it talk and talk and talk to ChatGPT), and see how it affects its behavior over the long run.
- exe34 2y ago
  i suspect they can detect that in a similar way to capchas and "verify you're human by clicking the box".
  - tivert 2y ago
    > i suspect they can detect that in a similar way to capchas and "verify you're human by clicking the box". I'm not so sure. IIRC, capchas are pretty much a solved problem, if you don't mind the cost of a little bit of human interaction (e.g. your interface pops up a captcha solver box when necessary, and is solved either by the bot's operator or some professional captcha-solver in a low-wage country).
    - immibis 2y ago
      there are services that solve captchas automatically with above-human success rates
- vidarh 2y ago
  These logs get manually reviewed by humans, sometimes annotated by automated systems first. The setups for manual reviews typically involve half a dozen steps with different people reviewing, comparing reviews, revising comparisons, and overseeing the revisions (source: I've done contract work at every stage of that process, have half a dozen internal documents for a company providing this service open right now). A lot of money is being pumped into automating parts of this, but a lot of money still also flows into manually reviewing and quality-assuring the whole process. Any logs showing significant quality declines would get picked up and filtered out pretty quickly.
exe34 2y ago
i think it's funny, every time you implement a clever solution to call gpt and get a decent answer, they get to use your idea in their product. what other project gets to crowdsource ideas and take credit for them like this? ps: actually maybe Amazon marketplace. probably others too.
- solveit 2y ago
  Most projects with an active user-created mods community are heavily influenced by them.
- egypturnash 2y ago
  "sherlocking" has been a thing since 2002, when Apple incorporated a bunch of third-party ideas for extending their "Sherlock" search tool into the official release. https://thehustle.co/sherlocking-explained https://thehustle.co/sherlocking-explained
- immibis 2y ago
  Amazon definitely does this, to great effect.
janalsncm 2y ago
Do people really expect anything different? There is a ton of cross-pollination in Silicon Valley. Keeping these innovations completely under wraps would be akin to a massive conspiracy. A peacetime Manhattan Project where everyone has a smartphone, a Twitter presence, and sleeps in their own bed. Frankly I am even skeptical of US-China separation at the moment. If Chinese scientists at e.g. Huawei somehow came up with the secret sauce to AGI tomorrow, no research group is so far behind that they couldn’t catch up pretty quickly. We saw this with ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini before, none of which are light years ahead of another. Of course this could change in the future. This is actually among the best case scenarios for research. It means that a preemptive strike on data centers is still off the table for now. (Sorry Eleazar)
sandspar 2y ago
It's been out for 24 hours and you make an extremely confident and dismissive claim. If you had to make a dollar bet that you precisely understand what's happening under the hood, exactly how much money would you bet?
golol 2y ago
What are you basing this one? The one thing that is very clearly stated up front is that this innovation is based on reinforcement learning. You dok't even have a good idea what the CoT looks like because those little summary snippets that the ChatGPT UI gives you are nothing substantial.
- mjburgess 2y ago
  People repairing chatgpt replies with additional prompts is reinforcement learning training data. "Reinforcement learning", just like any term used by AI researchers, is an extremely flexible, pseudo-psychological reskin of some pretty trivial stuff.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> there is no secret sauce and they're afraid someone trains a model on the output OpenAI is fundraising. The "stop us before we shoot Grandma" shtick has a proven track record: investors will fund something that sounds dangerous, because dangerous means powerful.

Der_Einzige 2y ago
Counterpoint, a place like Civit.AI is at least as dangerous, yet it's nowhere near as well funded.
- herval 2y ago
  a website that literally just hosts models with $5m in funding is plenty. It's not like they're doing foundation model research or anything novel, yet they nabbed a good amount of money for surfing the AI wave
  - Der_Einzige 2y ago
    Pony diffusion imho qualifies as “foundation model research” and while it’s not directly Civit.AI, it’s indirectly them.
    - herval 2y ago
      This is like saying chatgpt is “indirectly” made by Reddit…
      - Der_Einzige 2y ago
        It 100% is though, unironically.
        herval 2y ago
        If you say so
- 2y ago

coliveira 2y ago

So, basically they want to create something that is intelligent, yet it is not allowed to share or teach any of this intelligence.... Seems to be something evil.

lopatamd 2y ago
[dead]

m3kw9 2y ago

Training is the secret sauce, 90% of the work is in getting the data setup/cleaned etc

rich_sasha 2y ago

That would be a heinous breach of license! Stealing the output of OpenAI's LLM, for which they worked so hard. Man, just scraping all the copyrighted learning material was so much work...

m3kw9 2y ago

Occam’s razor is overused and most times, wrongly, to explain everything. Maybe the simpler reason is because of what they explained.

lackoftactics 2y ago
Yep, I had a friend who overused it a lot. Like it was magic bullet for every problem. It’s not only about simple solution being better, it’s about not multiplying beings when that could be avoided. In here if you already have an answer from their side, you are multiplying beings by going with conspiracy theory that they have nothing

Nextgrid 2y ago

But isn’t it only accessible to “trusted” users and heavily rate-limited to the point where the total throughput of it could be replicated by a well-funded adversary just paying humans to replicate the output, and obviously orders of magnitude lower than what is needed for training a model?

contravariant 2y ago

As boring as it is that's probably the case. There is a weird intensity to the way they're hiding these chain of thought outputs though. I mean, to date I've not seen anything but carefully curated examples of it, and even those are rare (or rather there's only 1 that I'm aware of). So we're at the stage where: - You're paying for those intermediate tokens - According to OpenAI they provide invaluable insight in how the model performs - You're not going to be able to see them (ever?). - Those thoughts can (apparently) not be constrained for 'compliance' (which could be anything from preventing harm to avoiding blatant racism to protecting OpenAI's bottom line) - This is all based on hearsay from the people who did see those outputs and then hid it from everyone else. You've got to be at least curious at this point, surely?

xnx 2y ago

3 GPT-4 in a trenchcoat

golol 2y ago

Occam's razor is that what they literally say is maybe just true: They don't train any safety into the Chain of Thought and don't want the user to be exposed to "bad publicity" generations like slurs etc.

jddj 2y ago
What they said is they decided to hide it: > after weighing multiple factors including user experience, competitive advantage, and the option to pursue the chain of thought monitoring

effingwewt 2y ago

Stop using Occam's razor like some literal law. It's a stupid and lazy philosophical theory bandied about like some catch-all solution. Like when people say 'the definition of insanity is[some random BS] with a bullshit attribution[Albert Einstein said it!(He didn't)]

mercer 2y ago
it's stochastic parrots all the way down

trilbyglens 2y ago

Ironic for a company built on scraping and exploiting data used without permission...