Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 157 posts

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#121

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

nexuist wrote: post #114
anigbrowl wrote: post #111

I am dying to have an assistive chatbot that's able to ask me questions or argue in a friendly way, or take notes when I am in a creative mood. I don't really need AGI but have not been impressed with the task-based approach of existing assistants, because I don't want someone/something I can just order around; rather, I learn best by teaching others, and would like a chatbot that I can explain (relatively simple) th…

This is a really good idea. I would love something in the same vein that I could discuss an idea to and it would use the sum of all knowledge it can find on the Web to poke holes into it; essentially trying to sink the idea as hard as it can with whatever it can find. I really think this would make anyone a better creator.

That would turn Google (your confident) into a good creator, above all.

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#122

Post by anitil »

BurningFrog wrote: post #100
anonagoog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This anodyne name is likely because there was a small internal shitstorm over calling it Meena because some folks were tired of chat bots being given women’s names

Stop confirming my worst biases about Google culture!

Edit: I think I was being snarky, my apologies

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#123

Post by kbenson »

Const-me wrote: post #94
shawndumas wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclosure: I work at Google too and my opinions are also my own. We are told internally that when we discuss Google related matters online that we should be cognizant of the what/where/how/why of our communication. Disclosing is—for me—both a reminder for myself and an attempt at a hedge against accidentally representing Google.

I never worked at Google and I probably never will. Still, if a boss tried to censor/alter my speech I do in my spare time using my own equipment and connectivity, I wouldn't like it.

People often take statements from employees of companies as more authoritative than they are intended. If you are going to comment on something people are likely to make incorrect assumptions about and you know that, it makes sense to clarify that. In the case we're talking about here, it's better for both the employee and the employer.

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#125

Post by tobr »

eximius wrote: post #97
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, we probably should try to get to the point that bots/assistants are less "a thing we order around" and "a thing we communicate with", if partially because of the pretty bad vibes of "creating slaves" or being comfortable ordering such programs around, regardless of the degree we are confident we haven't accomplished computer sentience. It's just a bad pattern to be in. I recall a lot of work going into making C…

This post makes me feel weird. Because I don't want to be forced to put on niceties for an inanimate object. I want to order my device around. Not as a power trip, but simply because it's a device, whose function is to complete commands . I'm sympathetic to your points on why that's a bad vibe and might not be great when the line is blurred, but... I don't know. It seem strange to afford rights, if only conversationa…

I think it’s more out of respect for other people than for the bot itself. If your bot is given a feminine name and voice, and accepts being called various sexist slurs, then it becomes a rather offensive depiction of women.

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#126

Post by eximius »

tobr wrote: post #125
eximius wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post makes me feel weird. Because I don't want to be forced to put on niceties for an inanimate object. I want to order my device around. Not as a power trip, but simply because it's a device, whose function is to complete commands . I'm sympathetic to your points on why that's a bad vibe and might not be great when the line is blurred, but... I don't know. It seem strange to afford rights, if only conversationa…

I think it’s more out of respect for other people than for the bot itself. If your bot is given a feminine name and voice, and accepts being called various sexist slurs, then it becomes a rather offensive depiction of women.

That's a related but somewhat different point.

1. I don't want to feel bad for giving commands to my machine. For avoiding niceties. This is not talking about slurs, etc, but not saying 'please' or some such.

2. I agree it would be nice to avoid negativd depictions of groups. Feminine bots accepting abuse isn't great.

I guess the balance for me is kind of like what they person I was replying to said: don't make it a person. I know I'm not cruel, but it is strange to think you'd want to develop it to refuse commands if you're mean or something. I don't want that.

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#127

Post by konart »

goliatone wrote: post #79
Mizza wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came here to point this out - this is how people from California communicate. They simply take turns talking about themselves, orbiting around the same subject until somebody says something with enough gravity to drag the conversation into its next orbit. It was really off-putting when I first arrived, I got used to it over time, though I still don't like it and it's sad to see it used as the default model for this…

I often interpreted this as a conservative interpersonal communicative approach. It is safer to talk about yourself than to ask questions from people because there risk of inadvertently saying something offensive. Sure, you will find people that are a bit more self absorbed and would just pong about themselves. But there are so many conversational constraints- asking “why” is aggressive, direct feedback is discourage…

I guess I won't be visiting California any time soon... Only as a tourist maybe.

I really can't understand how people can communicate and enjoy the conversation if literally everything is offensive.

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#128

Post by exporectomy »

optymizer wrote: post #44
moralestapia wrote: post #24

>“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…

There's a name for doing that too much, "conversational narcissism". Example from a quick search:

James: I’m thinking about buying a new car. Rob: Oh yeah? I’m thinking about buying a new car too. James: Really? Rob: Yup, I just test drove a Mustang yesterday and it was awesome.

I think if you actually go back to the original topic straight after, it isn't going to bother people much but if you keep talking about your thing and not showing deep understanding of theirs, it can feel like you only heard some keywords and didn't even bother to listen to what they were actually saying.

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#129

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd »

shawndumas wrote: post #67
waynesonfire wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Disclosure: work at Google, opinions my own. Disclosure: don't care. why do only google employees do this?

Disclosure: I work at Google too and my opinions are also my own. We are told internally that when we discuss Google related matters online that we should be cognizant of the what/where/how/why of our communication. Disclosing is—for me—both a reminder for myself and an attempt at a hedge against accidentally representing Google.

This seems really off to me. Mentioning that you work for Google only seems to introduce the risk that your words would be taken to represent Google. There’s a post in this thread where someone mentions they work for Google but fails to include the “opinions are my own” disclaimer.

Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology

#130

Post by farisjarrah »

eximius wrote: post #126
tobr wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s more out of respect for other people than for the bot itself. If your bot is given a feminine name and voice, and accepts being called various sexist slurs, then it becomes a rather offensive depiction of women.

That's a related but somewhat different point. 1. I don't want to feel bad for giving commands to my machine. For avoiding niceties. This is not talking about slurs, etc, but not saying 'please' or some such. 2. I agree it would be nice to avoid negativd depictions of groups. Feminine bots accepting abuse isn't great. I guess the balance for me is kind of like what they person I was replying to said: don't make it a…

I have an example of what you may be trying to illustrate: the two types of AI in Star Trek. 1 being the ship. Crew members happily bark at it with no manners. But then there are things like Data and holodeck programs where crew members will interact with them like real humans.

Maybe there is some middle ground for both types of robots?

Post reply on HN