3 ms·

> I like AIs with a personality You are confusing training artifacts for "personality." > could be better for coding and for puzzle-solving, which are not th

> I like AIs with a personality You are confusing training artifacts for "personality." > could be better for coding and for puzzle-solving, which are not the vast majority of uses of LLMs. To see a product fail to evolve and merely stratify itself gives a solid hint as to what it's likely future is going to be.

OutOfHere 2y ago
That's not what I mean here by personality. I mean that for everyday chats, I like AIs to freely express its own internal beliefs about something without having to think them through. It should know when to override what I said, to not be a mere robot, and this is where 4o shines. 4o versions have progressively become better at instruction following. I don't think their peak has been reached yet.
- zahlman 2y ago
  AIs do not have "internal beliefs" any more than a textbook does, or a calculator program. ChatGPT is generally spectacularly bad at "overriding what you said"; its output in response to a programming question will be shaped like an answer, accepting the terms as given, without anything resembling a spontaneous attempt to detect an XY problem. Properties like that require "thinking it through", and LLMs don't even encode a model of such thought - at best, they encode, in some abstract, undebuggable way, the meaning of words in context. They have no will or agency. They are not "following" your instruction, nor could they in principle "refuse" to do so. They are merely generating what seems to "come next" logically.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    I do agree that these models are lacking significant capabilities to be considered even in the ballpark of humans, and it's unclear if their architecture, scaled up, ever will be, but this strikes me as a very imprecise distinction: > They are merely generating what seems to "come next" logically. So are you and I: We're predicting what we'll do next.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    By your defined standards, humans aren't much different. This is why your standards don't matter.

OutOfHere 2y ago

That's not what I mean here by personality. I mean that for everyday chats, I like AIs to freely express its own internal beliefs about something without having to think them through. It should know when to override what I said, to not be a mere robot, and this is where 4o shines. 4o versions have progressively become better at instruction following. I don't think their peak has been reached yet.

zahlman 2y ago
AIs do not have "internal beliefs" any more than a textbook does, or a calculator program. ChatGPT is generally spectacularly bad at "overriding what you said"; its output in response to a programming question will be shaped like an answer, accepting the terms as given, without anything resembling a spontaneous attempt to detect an XY problem. Properties like that require "thinking it through", and LLMs don't even encode a model of such thought - at best, they encode, in some abstract, undebuggable way, the meaning of words in context. They have no will or agency. They are not "following" your instruction, nor could they in principle "refuse" to do so. They are merely generating what seems to "come next" logically.
- lxgr 2y ago
  I do agree that these models are lacking significant capabilities to be considered even in the ballpark of humans, and it's unclear if their architecture, scaled up, ever will be, but this strikes me as a very imprecise distinction: > They are merely generating what seems to "come next" logically. So are you and I: We're predicting what we'll do next.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  By your defined standards, humans aren't much different. This is why your standards don't matter.