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.
FWIW Intel engineers are meant to use the hashtag #iamintel to indicate their role, see it a lot on LinkedIn
LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology
151–157 of 157 posts
Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology
#152Earlier 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 wonder if the solution is to stop building bots to emulate humans: Natural language processing is important so humans can make ordinary requests of a computer without having to remember specific syntax. But perhaps we should stop trying to make the computer respond the way a human would, so that people don't view it like a human or personality.
Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also a Googler, and same. I tried to get it to say controversial/inflammatory/bigoted things with leading questions, or questions where the framing itself was problematic, and it was quite adept at deflecting/dodging/resisting. I was very surprised.
So it's an awesome simulation of a prissy bore? ;-) I'm joking, I know that if it did say controversial things the headline would be "Google has created a robot fascist". You can't win at the moment....
What?? "You can't win" because this language model tries to avoid saying bigoted things? You say that like it's some sort of catch-22. It's a very desirable property and is a hard problem that needs to be solved to safely deploy these sorts of models to billions of users.
Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology
#154Disclosure: 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).
Also a Googler, and same. I tried to get it to say controversial/inflammatory/bigoted things with leading questions, or questions where the framing itself was problematic, and it was quite adept at deflecting/dodging/resisting. I was very surprised.
Despite changes in culture, people's nature hasn't changed in 200 years.
Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think they are NOT listening? Whatsapp and facebook messenger/chatter thing both have mic access for a lot of people and it is truly bizzare how topics of conversations, even the first time they are broached, end up in facebook ads.
I think the data/power usage would be noticeable.
Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology
#156Re: LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology
#157>“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 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…
What do people talk about where you're originally from?