31–40 of 108 posts
Cool, how do I talk to it? I see these big announcements with nothing behind them but a white paper and no way to reproduce. It's not a fact if there is no falsifiability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good question. I think they probably meant "publicly available," not "public domain." Maybe one could make an educated guess about which platforms they took data from, based on the sample outputs of their model? I can't tell, myself. Samples here: https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/mast...
"Human 1: There is sports tournament (badminton + tennis + basketball) organized by google next week. Would you like to volunteer for these events? Human 2: what does a volunteer do?" later "Human 1: Perfect! We have a meeting today at 4.30 pm. Is it fine if i add you to it? Human 2: yes happy to help" I'd say in this conversation Human 1 and 2 are Google employees.
Seems not all life is happy, wherever the samples come from.
> I used to be a Java advocate. But you know, it doesn't do a good job in the AI days. It really makes me sad
===
Human 1: Nice to meet you! Is this your first time doing something like this?
Human 2: Yes, interesting task! When did you start with the team?
Human 1: I have been with the company for over 3 years. Stick with the same team What about you?
Human 2: Great to know! I joined the project earlier in the year. I think we should sync later for lunch.
===
Human 1: Hi!
Human 2: hey, what's up?
Human 1: What do you think about human like chat bots?
Human 2: I can't wait for them to be great conversationalists!
Human 1: Yep, we seemed to have made some great progress over last few years. Do you think the positives outweigh the negatives
Human 2: are there even any negatives? what are they?
Human 1: Like impersorsination? Though it sounds far fetched :)
===
Human 1: Hi!
Human 2: Hello!
Human 1: There is sports tournament (badminton + tennis + basketball) organized by google next week. Would you like to volunteer for these events?
Human 2: what does a volunteer do?
Human 1: Volunteers have to book the place before the event, send out details of the event to participants, handle some logistics and ensure everything goes smoothly. It will be fun!
Human 2: That sounds fun, I hope I get to participate as well
Human 1: Great! Do you have any preference for any of these events?
From the very first sample conversation they released: - Human: Hi! - Meena: Hey there! What's up? - Human: Same old, Monday blues...what are you up to? - Meena: I'm procrastinating on a paper I'm supposed to be writing. - Human: are you thinking of pulling an all nighter? - Meena: Possibly. What's your paper on? The bot has already mistaken facts about its own crafted persona and the human in less than 2 meaningful…
I think we're trying to stretch too far here. We've always dreamt of having a conversation with a bot without actually constructing the intelligence behind that bot. And it's not going to work.
We should start with something simpler, like cats, which definitely have feeling, but have a mental capacity that is closer to what we may be able to emulate through software. And then monitor progress through its 'meowing', 'purring' and 'tail wagging'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not you, but explicitly encouraging others to take harmful steps is a potential outcome. For example, there's a clear safety issue with a conversational bot that tells you to kill yourself if you talk to it about feeling suicidal or depressed. What if you talk to it about immigration and by picking commonly upvoted statements on certain online communities it starts to encourage violence? There are clear ways to…
That’s a decent argument but then should we go to Hollywood and sanitize their violence in their movies (even those wanting to teach us about the evil of violence) for fear they might incite the wrong people who see such as calls to violence? What I mean is that that possibility exists in other media yet we don’t feel ambiguous about it.
But even ignoring that, I think most people have a good understanding of what a movie is and that fictional characters are not real. Movies have been around for a long time, most people have been watching them their entire lives. I don't think at this point that most people have nearly as good an understanding of chatbots. If you can converse with one and it mostly delivers responses like a person would, some people will start treating it like a person and ascribe values to its statements, and that's where it potentially gets dangerous.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/arts/television/netflix-d...
> The Meena model has 2.6 billion parameters and is trained on 341 GB of text, filtered from public domain social media conversation Who's conversations?
Good question. I think they probably meant "publicly available," not "public domain." Maybe one could make an educated guess about which platforms they took data from, based on the sample outputs of their model? I can't tell, myself. Samples here: https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/mast...
Yes, its answer makes more sense than prev efforts, but you need real logic to assign semantic to the answer or to the question.
What does this bot prove? That you have enough resources to train on X GPUs instead of Y GPUs?.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a decent argument but then should we go to Hollywood and sanitize their violence in their movies (even those wanting to teach us about the evil of violence) for fear they might incite the wrong people who see such as calls to violence? What I mean is that that possibility exists in other media yet we don’t feel ambiguous about it.
First of all, Hollywood does occasionally sanitize films and TV shows. For example, the suicide scene was removed from "13 Reasons Why" after concerns from mental health experts that it might inspire copycats [1]. But even ignoring that, I think most people have a good understanding of what a movie is and that fictional characters are not real. Movies have been around for a long time, most people have been watching t…
Maybe... but it seems like a bit of a stretch.