4 ms·
I respect both the comment and the commenter, but this is a fundamentally speculative statement that is somewhat meaningless. It paraphrases to "it wasn't inte
by rapatel0 1y ago
I respect both the comment and the commenter, but this is a fundamentally speculative statement that is somewhat meaningless.
It paraphrases to "it wasn't intentional, but something was intentional, and also unpredictable."
I'm sorry but what does that even mean? It's pure speculation.
Furthermore, I highly doubt that a reporter from politico has the either the expertise or the connections to qualify the post processing / fine tuning processes for the one of the most closely guarded and expensive processes in all of technology (training large scale foundation models).
Finally, the paragraph from the quote begins with "I mean, even Elon Musk, who’s probably warmer to Hitler than I am, doesn’t really want his LLM to say stuff like this."
Again it confirms a prior bias/narrative and is rage-bait to drive revenue.
- stickfigure 1y ago> I'm sorry but what does that even mean? If I want to be generous, something along the lines of "The Law Of Unintended Consequences". Less generous is "someone turned the dial to the right and didn't realize how far they turned it". Even less generous is that someone feels some of these things in private but doesn't want to make it too explicit. They personally have a hard time toeing the line between edgy and obviously toxic and programming an AI to toe that line is even harder.
- vintagedave 1y agoI didn't post with the intention of being rage-bait; I thought it was a genuinely interesting article beyond its headline. That said, you're right. We don't know, and maybe we're giving too much credit to someone who seems unreliable. I'd love to know more in general about how LLMs get from the training stage to the release stage -- there seems to be a lot of tuning.