Live data from Hacker News

LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

blog.google

51–60 of 157 posts

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#51

>“I just started taking guitar lessons.” >You might expect another person to respond with something like: >“How exciting! My mom has a vintage Martin that she loves to play.” Not really IMO, I think they just pushed it to just say "whatever's related to the topic". People who behave like that irl come off as self-absorbed and obnoxious most of the time, hope future AIs are not like that!

I read that reply rather differently. It didn't sound self-absorbed, as if they were saying "let's talk about me, not you." It was more like "how cool, we have a common interest, lots to talk about!"

I could imagine better responses, but I didn't see much wrong with that one.

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#52
Disclosure: work at Google, opinions my own.

I've had a chance to play with this and it's eerie how good it is. Most impressive to me, it was able to defend itself persuasively when confronted with evidence of how its previous answers were inconsistent (in the version I played with, it tends to be very coherent but frequently wrong).

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#53

>“I just started taking guitar lessons.” >You might expect another person to respond with something like: >“How exciting! My mom has a vintage Martin that she loves to play.” Not really IMO, I think they just pushed it to just say "whatever's related to the topic". People who behave like that irl come off as self-absorbed and obnoxious most of the time, hope future AIs are not like that!

A lot of this is cultural, imo. I grew up in Eastern Europe, where it's very common to have two people talking exactly in that way about a common topic: "X? Yeah, my mom Y". It took me a while to learn that I can come across as self-absorbed and obnoxious in the US when speaking that way, so I have to consciously remember to ask questions about the person or the topic they presented, and avoid introducing my own rela…

First, please don't take this as a personal criticism, or that I'm saying that you do sound self-absorbed - we are in a comment section where people share their own experiences and opinions, so I don't think that expressing yourself in the first person is in any way negative.

However, to answer your question about how to appear less "self-involved", perhaps there's a structural trick you can use, which is to shift some of your writing from first-person to second-person and speak from the outside? How does this sound to you:

"It can take a while to learn that this can come across as self-absorbed and obnoxious in the US when speaking that way, so I've learned to consciously remember to ask questions about the person or the topic they presented, and void introducing related topics. This does make it more challenging to know when it's OK or how to actually switch topics (since, like the article mentions, conversations do flow from one topic to another) and this uncertainty can be anxiety-inducing"

I'm not saying it's essential, but as an exercise if you imaging talking about the situation that way, it can influence the tone.

I will repeat that I think your fear about sounding self-absorbed does not come out, to me, in your paragraph. I have worked with colleagues whose conversations do wander off on their own tangents if they're not asked to focus, and that may be similar to what you're talking about? But I can't be sure. If so, that is the difference between conversation for its own sake where sharing and opinion and life experiences are related, and workplace conversations which often have an objective, etc.

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People who behave like that irl come off as Perhaps it would be better to specify that that's how you interpret this. Your own proclivities do not represent the world.

IMO means In My Opinion

And that related to the "Not really". Not the bit I was talking about:

> Not really IMO, I think they just pushed it to just say "whatever's related to the topic". People who behave like that irl come off as self-absorbed and obnoxious most of the time, hope future AIs are not like that!

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#55

>“I just started taking guitar lessons.” >You might expect another person to respond with something like: >“How exciting! My mom has a vintage Martin that she loves to play.” Not really IMO, I think they just pushed it to just say "whatever's related to the topic". People who behave like that irl come off as self-absorbed and obnoxious most of the time, hope future AIs are not like that!

A lot of this is cultural, imo. I grew up in Eastern Europe, where it's very common to have two people talking exactly in that way about a common topic: "X? Yeah, my mom Y". It took me a while to learn that I can come across as self-absorbed and obnoxious in the US when speaking that way, so I have to consciously remember to ask questions about the person or the topic they presented, and avoid introducing my own rela…

Yeah, I grew up in the Midwest and even there it's super common to respond to X with a personal anecdote about X.

I think it makes the conversation more personal. Anyone can say, "Oh cool! What songs have you learned?" Only _you_ (you know, the friend they chose to talk to) can say, "Oh, that's cool! My grandpa gave me a cool guitar that I've been meaning to learn to play."

I find the best approach is to sandwich a personal anecdote between two "you" statements for the people who need a prompt to carry the conversation. For example, "That's really interesting. I've also been thinking about learning guitar. How are you liking your lessons?"

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#56

>“I just started taking guitar lessons.” >You might expect another person to respond with something like: >“How exciting! My mom has a vintage Martin that she loves to play.” Not really IMO, I think they just pushed it to just say "whatever's related to the topic". People who behave like that irl come off as self-absorbed and obnoxious most of the time, hope future AIs are not like that!

I think it depends on context. Idle chat at the coffee machine? Fair game to inject trivia like that. Somebody who maybe is looking for support in their new hobby? Different altogether.

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#58

>“I just started taking guitar lessons.” >You might expect another person to respond with something like: >“How exciting! My mom has a vintage Martin that she loves to play.” Not really IMO, I think they just pushed it to just say "whatever's related to the topic". People who behave like that irl come off as self-absorbed and obnoxious most of the time, hope future AIs are not like that!

A lot of this is cultural, imo. I grew up in Eastern Europe, where it's very common to have two people talking exactly in that way about a common topic: "X? Yeah, my mom Y". It took me a while to learn that I can come across as self-absorbed and obnoxious in the US when speaking that way, so I have to consciously remember to ask questions about the person or the topic they presented, and avoid introducing my own rela…

I only find that obnoxious when they come of as "one-upping" the other person.

Maybe I'm wrong and people secretly think I'm obnoxious, but I think it's a good thing to quickly mention something like "my mom Y" to show your familiarity with a topic, so the other person knows how much detail they need to give when talking about it. Like, if they're explaining what a certain company does in detail, and your mom works there, you should probably let them know before they explain a ton of stuff you already know.

I think the key is just to steer the conversation back quickly. If you derail it talking about yourself, steer it back with something like "So how did you like X?"

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#59

I have been researching making a therapy chat bot for years... it's going to happen. https://github.com/andrewt3000/carl_voice

I have a reasonably functional one built on top of GPT-3 - message me if you'd like to talk.

A few years ago I also worked on a few passive bots that'd try to find at-risk or self-harming people on reddit/twitter that might be in need of therapy or someone/something to talk to.

It was too much emotional work to work with the training data so I haven't worked on it in a long time, but if something like that would be helpful, feel free to message me as well. :)

Or, if there's some community somewhere where people trying to solve this common problem gather, I'd love to hear about it / join!

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#60
post #36

How's this paper's reproducibility? Because more and more I see Google publishing papers with internal data and telling others "if you had this data you would be able to reproduce this results"

Isn't it the same in many cases? E.g. the discovery of the higgs boson is only possible with access to a large particle accelerator, many astronomy studies are only reproducible with access to a large telescope, and some ml studies are only reproducible with access to a large dataset. Sure it's not ideal, but it's better than not publishing the results at all.
Post reply on HN