81–90 of 426 posts
As language (especially English) evolves, how 'human like' is "human like"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GPT2 version of the AI Dungeon [1] could keep track of context for maybe couple of lines at a time. I've heard the GPT3 version is substantially better. The problem is, of course, that these "AI" chatbots on websites, marketing buzzwords notwithstanding, have very little to do with state-of-the-art machine learning, and are indeed unlikely to be any more sophisticated than the original ELIZA for the most part. [1…
Thanks for the link to that! I tried it out just now and I have to say that I am not impressed. What will you do? You get longsword from the ground. You get your longsword from the ground. You hold it in your hands and examine it for a moment. It's a very sturdy weapon. The knight then grabs his longsword and bows. Huh? Why did it grab the bow as well? You inventory. You have a crossbow. Huh? I thought I just grabbed…
> The knight then grabs his longsword and bows.
"bow" here probably refers to "a bending of the head or body in respect, submission, assent, or salutation", rather than to the weapon. The knight grabbed his longsword and bowed to you. Your confusion then confused the game.
This does expose an interesting common "failure mode" for these types of bots: they assume that all conversations are rational, and are conducted in good faith (as in, no one misunderstands or is actively trying to confuse them). Janelle Shane likes to test AIs that attempt to describe the content of images by asking "how many giraffes are in the picture?", and since most of these have been trained to answer what is in a picture rather than what's not in a picture, they tend to assume that there must be some number of giraffes, and provide answers like "there are 1.5 giraffes".
I really hate when companies hide behind chatbots. Like, NOOOO, your "AI" chatbot didn't help me - get me an actual person.
It can be quite useful in a weird way. While everyone else is stuck on the chatbot going round in circles, usually typing something like "human" or "talk to human" will make the chatbot connect you with an actual human representative (or ask you a few basic questions first and then connect you). I've used the trick on various large company's websites when trying to get support and it seems to be quite 'universal'.
I'm pretty sure that GPT-3 and statistics-based approaches to bots aren't going to be truly convincing anytime soon. But there's another definition of "chatbots" that consumer-facing brands use every day to triage questions, attempt to answer them using good but not mind-blowing ML, and then escalate to a human being if/when the problem can't be solved. There is already a thriving market for these "dumb" bots that ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still doesn’t piss me off as much as automated phone support systems. 90% of the time they only offer options that I could easily go online to do. If I’m calling your phone number. It’s because I have a problem that’s not solved or clarified by your existing self-support systems.
> Still doesn’t piss me off as much as automated phone support systems. Yes, the AI voice bot is marginally better because I can request "customer service" without waiting to discover the right numeric code. That's about the extent of that.
There's a good chunk of people who are stressed in having to be comfortable with vide variety of website interfaces. For my dad who's over 60 years struggles with the government's interface to avail the pension scheme.
Chatbot or conversational interfaces have a repeating pattern. People are used to conversational interfaces because of SMS, iMessage, WhatsApp, FB, etc etc. Providing an experience through a chatbot interface reduces the learning curve for the end-user. You are presenting tiny chunk of information and even collecting one thing at a time. It's drastically less overwhelming.
It's not just for 60 years, I have friends who are around my age late 20s who finds it difficult to navigate through websites that have many offerings (Banks, Govt Services, etc)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the link to that! I tried it out just now and I have to say that I am not impressed. What will you do? You get longsword from the ground. You get your longsword from the ground. You hold it in your hands and examine it for a moment. It's a very sturdy weapon. The knight then grabs his longsword and bows. Huh? Why did it grab the bow as well? You inventory. You have a crossbow. Huh? I thought I just grabbed…
I think things started to go wrong here > The knight then grabs his longsword and bows. "bow" here probably refers to "a bending of the head or body in respect, submission, assent, or salutation", rather than to the weapon. The knight grabbed his longsword and bowed to you. Your confusion then confused the game. This does expose an interesting common "failure mode" for these types of bots: they assume that all conver…
Here is the entire unedited transcript:
"Good luck, my friend!" the man says.
You inventory.
You have a short sword, a longsword, a shield, and a crossbow with bolts.
You look.
You look around and see a longsword lying on the ground and a bow on a table.
A large dragon looms in the background, breathing fire.
What will you do?
You get longsword from the ground.
You get your longsword from the ground. You hold it in your hands and examine it for a moment. It's a very sturdy weapon.
The knight then grabs his longsword and bows.
You inventory.
You have a crossbow.
What will you do?
You don't have enough experience to know what a good shot is.
You get longsword and bow.
You grab the bow and the longsword. You examine the crossbow. It's a bolt-action weapon.
You inventory.
You have a crossbow, a short sword, a longsword, a lantern, a flint and steel, and a quiver of bolts.
What will you do?
You load the crossbow.
You shoot dragon with crossbow.
You grab the crossbow and aim at the dragon's eye.
The knight releases a string and a bolt flies into the dragon's eye.
The dragon roars loudly and swipes a massive claw at the knight.
You health.
You are hit in the chest and knocked back. The knight rolls to the side and looks at you. The knight is laughing.
The dragon swipes a claw at you and you are sent spinning to the ground.
You stab dragon with longsword.
You stab at the dragon's leg and the sword goes right through.
The dragon roars and swipes a claw at you.
You roll to the side and dodge the claw.
Having worked in ML at two different companies now, I think that people interpreting model output as intelligence or understanding says much more about the people than about the model output. We want it to be true, so we squint and connect dots and it's true. But it isn't. It's math and tricks, and if human intelligence is truly nothing more than math and tricks, then what we have today is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction…
The "want it" resonates. Seems like the difference is in receiving an answer that is relatively agreeable or sensical vs something that's actually substantive.
And to be fair when it comes to the Turing test, there's people that will be overly agreeable for the sake of politeness, but ultimately when it comes to knowledge seeking we're after something more substantive.