6 ms·

The usage of "greater" is also interesting. It's like they are trying to say better, but greater is a geographic term and doesn't mean "better" instead it's clo

The usage of "greater" is also interesting. It's like they are trying to say better, but greater is a geographic term and doesn't mean "better" instead it's closer to "wider" or "covers more area."

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lechatonnoir 2y ago
I'm all for skepticism of capabilities and cynicism about corporate messaging, but I really don't think there's an interpretation of the word "greater" in this context" that doesn't mean "higher" and "better".
- dgfitz 2y ago
  I think the trick is observing what is “better” in this model. EQ is supposed to be “better” than 4o, according to the prose. However, how can an LLM have emotional-anything? LLMs are a regurgitation machine, emotion has nothing to do with anything.
  - svnt 2y ago
    Words have valence, and valence reflects the state of emotional being of the user. This model appears to understand that better and responds like it’s in a therapeutic conversation and not composing an essay or article. Perhaps they are/were going for stealth therapy-bot with this.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      But there is no actual empathy, it isn’t possible.
      - emaciatedslug 2y ago
        But there is no actual death or love in a movie or book and yet we react as if there is. It's literally what qualifying a movie as a "tear-jerker” is. I wanted to see Saving Private Ryan in theaters to bond with my Grandpa who received a Purple Heart in the Korean War, I was shutdown almost instantly from my family. All special effects and no death but he had PTSD and one night thought his wife was the N.K. and nearly choked her to death because he had flashbacks and she came into the bedroom quietly so he wasn't disturbed. Extreme example yes, but having him loose his shit in public because of something analogous for some is near enough it makes no difference.
      - svnt 2y ago
        You think that it isn’t possible to have an emotional model of a human? Why, because you think it is too complex? Empathy done well seems like 1:1 mapping at an emotional level, but that doesn’t imply to me that it couldn’t be done at a different level of modeling. Empathy can be done poorly, and then it is projecting.
        AdieuToLogic 2y ago
        It has not only been possible to simulate empathetic interaction via computer systems, but proven to be achievable for close to sixty years[0]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
        dgfitz 2y ago
        I don’t think it’s possible for 1s and 0s to feel… well, anything.
  - brookst 2y ago
    Imagine two greeting cards. One says “I’m so sorry for your loss”, and the other says “Everyone dies, they weren’t special”. Does one of these have a higher EQ, despite both being ink and paper and definitely not sentient? Now, imagine they were produced by two different AIs. Does one AI demonstrate higher EQ? The trick is in seeing that “EQ of a text response” is not the same thing as “EQ of a sentient being”
    - wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
      i agree with you. i think it is dishonest for them to post train 4.5 to feign sympathy when someone vents to it. its just weird. they showed it off in the demo.
      - brookst 2y ago
        Why? The choice to not do the post training would be every bit as intentional, and no different than post training to make it less sympathetic. This is a designed system. The designers make choices. I don’t see how failing to plan and design for a common use case would be better.
        wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
        We do not know if it is capable of sympathy. Post training it to reliably be sympathetic feels manipulative. Can it atleast be post trained to be honest. Dishonesty is immoral. I want my AIs to behave morally.
        RandomDistort 2y ago
        AIs don't behave. They are a lot of fancy maths. Their creators can behave in ethical or moral ways though when they create these models. = not to say that the people that work on AI are not incredibly talented, but more that it's not human
        wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
skissane 2y ago
> but greater is a geographic term and doesn't mean "better" instead it's closer to "wider" or "covers more area." You are confusing a specific geographical sense of “greater” (e.g. “greater New York”) with the generic sense of “greater” which just means “more great”. In “7 is greater than 6”, “greater” isn’t geographic The difference between “greater” and “better”, is “greater” just means “more than”, without implying any value judgement-“better” implies the “more than” is a good thing: “The Holocaust had a greater death toll than the Armenian genocide” is an obvious fact, but only a horrendously evil person would use “better” in that sentence (excluding of course someone who accidentally misspoke, or a non-native speaker mixing up words)
OJFord 2y ago
2 is greater than 1.

The usage of "greater" is also interesting. It's like they are trying to say better, but greater is a geographic term and doesn't mean "better" instead it's closer to "wider" or "covers more area."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lechatonnoir 2y ago

I'm all for skepticism of capabilities and cynicism about corporate messaging, but I really don't think there's an interpretation of the word "greater" in this context" that doesn't mean "higher" and "better".

dgfitz 2y ago
I think the trick is observing what is “better” in this model. EQ is supposed to be “better” than 4o, according to the prose. However, how can an LLM have emotional-anything? LLMs are a regurgitation machine, emotion has nothing to do with anything.
- svnt 2y ago
  Words have valence, and valence reflects the state of emotional being of the user. This model appears to understand that better and responds like it’s in a therapeutic conversation and not composing an essay or article. Perhaps they are/were going for stealth therapy-bot with this.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    But there is no actual empathy, it isn’t possible.
    - emaciatedslug 2y ago
      But there is no actual death or love in a movie or book and yet we react as if there is. It's literally what qualifying a movie as a "tear-jerker” is. I wanted to see Saving Private Ryan in theaters to bond with my Grandpa who received a Purple Heart in the Korean War, I was shutdown almost instantly from my family. All special effects and no death but he had PTSD and one night thought his wife was the N.K. and nearly choked her to death because he had flashbacks and she came into the bedroom quietly so he wasn't disturbed. Extreme example yes, but having him loose his shit in public because of something analogous for some is near enough it makes no difference.
    - svnt 2y ago
      You think that it isn’t possible to have an emotional model of a human? Why, because you think it is too complex? Empathy done well seems like 1:1 mapping at an emotional level, but that doesn’t imply to me that it couldn’t be done at a different level of modeling. Empathy can be done poorly, and then it is projecting.
      - AdieuToLogic 2y ago
        It has not only been possible to simulate empathetic interaction via computer systems, but proven to be achievable for close to sixty years[0]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
      - dgfitz 2y ago
        I don’t think it’s possible for 1s and 0s to feel… well, anything.
- brookst 2y ago
  Imagine two greeting cards. One says “I’m so sorry for your loss”, and the other says “Everyone dies, they weren’t special”. Does one of these have a higher EQ, despite both being ink and paper and definitely not sentient? Now, imagine they were produced by two different AIs. Does one AI demonstrate higher EQ? The trick is in seeing that “EQ of a text response” is not the same thing as “EQ of a sentient being”
  - wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
    i agree with you. i think it is dishonest for them to post train 4.5 to feign sympathy when someone vents to it. its just weird. they showed it off in the demo.
    - brookst 2y ago
      Why? The choice to not do the post training would be every bit as intentional, and no different than post training to make it less sympathetic. This is a designed system. The designers make choices. I don’t see how failing to plan and design for a common use case would be better.
      - wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
        We do not know if it is capable of sympathy. Post training it to reliably be sympathetic feels manipulative. Can it atleast be post trained to be honest. Dishonesty is immoral. I want my AIs to behave morally.
        RandomDistort 2y ago
        AIs don't behave. They are a lot of fancy maths. Their creators can behave in ethical or moral ways though when they create these models. = not to say that the people that work on AI are not incredibly talented, but more that it's not human
        wegfawefgawefg 2y ago

skissane 2y ago

> but greater is a geographic term and doesn't mean "better" instead it's closer to "wider" or "covers more area." You are confusing a specific geographical sense of “greater” (e.g. “greater New York”) with the generic sense of “greater” which just means “more great”. In “7 is greater than 6”, “greater” isn’t geographic The difference between “greater” and “better”, is “greater” just means “more than”, without implying any value judgement-“better” implies the “more than” is a good thing: “The Holocaust had a greater death toll than the Armenian genocide” is an obvious fact, but only a horrendously evil person would use “better” in that sentence (excluding of course someone who accidentally misspoke, or a non-native speaker mixing up words)

OJFord 2y ago

2 is greater than 1.