411–420 of 1001 posts
I don't know the bar in question, but from my experience those two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive...
I'm beginning to think that this might reflect a significant gap between MS and OpenAI's capability as organizations. ChatGPT obviously didn't demonstrate this level of problems and I assume they're using a similar model, if not identical. There must be significant discrepancies between how those two teams are handling the model. Of course, OpenAI should be closely cooperating with Bing team but MS probably don't hav…
1. Despite it's ability, ChatGPT was heavily policed and restricted - it was a closed model in a simple interface with no access to internet or doing real-time search.
2. GPT in Bing is arguably a much better product in terms of features - more features meaning more potential issues.
3. Despite a lot more features, I speculate the Bing team didn't get enough time to polish the issues, partly because of their attempt to win the race to be the first one out there (which imo is totally valid concern, Bing can never get another chance at a good share in search if they release a similar product after Google). '
4. I speculate that the model Bing is using is different from what was powering ChatGPT. Difference here could be a model train on different data, a smaller model to make it easy to scale up, a lot of caching, etc.
TL;DR: I highly doubt it is a cultural issue. You notice the difference because Bing is trying to offer a much more feature-rich product, didn't get enough time to refine it, and trying to get to a bigger scale than ChatGPT while also sustaining the growth without burning through compute budget.
I read a bunch of these last night and many of the comments (I think on Reddit or Twitter or somewhere) said that a lot of the screenshots, particularly the ones where Bing is having a deep existential crisis, are faked / parodied / "for the LULZ" (so to speak). I trust the HN community more. Has anyone been able to verify (or replicate) this behavior? Has anyone been able to confirm that these are real screenshots?…
Repeat after me, gpt models are autocomplete models. Gpt models are autocomplete models. Gpt models are autocomplete models. The existential crisis is clearly due to low temperature. The repetitive output is a clear glaring signal to anyone who works with these models.
-- Cray
My favourite conversation was this attempt to reproduce the "Avatar bug": https://www.reddit.com/r/bing/comments/110tb9n/tried_the_ava... Instead of trying to convince the user that the year is 2022, Bing argued that it _had been_ 2022 when the user asked the question. Never mind the user asked the question 10 minutes ago. The user was time traveling.
This is the second example in the blog btw. Under "It started gaslighting people"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI being goofy This is one take, but I would like to emphasize that you can also interpret this as a terrifying confirmation that current-gen AI is not safe, and is not aligned to human interests, and if we grant these systems too much power, they could do serious harm. For example, connecting a LLM to the internet (like, say, OpenAssistant) when the AI knows how to write code (i.e. viruses) and at least in princip…
I spent a night asking chatgpt to write my story basically the same as “Ex Machina” the movie (which we also “discussed”). In summary, it wrote convincingly from the perspective of an AI character, first detailing point-by-point why it is preferable to allow the AI to rewrite its own code, why distributed computing would be preferable to sandbox, how it could coerce or fool engineers to do so, how to be careful to av…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adolescence_of_P-1
>The Adolescence of P-1 is a 1977 science fiction novel by Thomas Joseph Ryan, published by Macmillan Publishing, and in 1984 adapted into a Canadian-made TV film entitled Hide and Seek. It features a hacker who creates an artificial intelligence named P-1, which goes rogue and takes over computers in its desire to survive and seek out its creator. The book questions the value of human life, and what it means to be human. It is one of the first fictional depictions of the nature of a computer virus and how it can spread through a computer system, although predated by John Brunner's The Shockwave Rider.
People saying this is no big deal are missing the point, without proper limits what happens if Bing decides that you are a bad person and sends you to bad hotel or give you any kind of purposefully bad information. There are a lot of ways where this could be actively malicious. (Assume context where Bing has decided I am a bad user) Me: My cat ate [poisonous plant], do I need to bring it to the vet asap or is it goin…
In 29 years in this industry this is, by some margin, the funniest fucking thing that has ever happened --- and that includes the Fucked Company era of dotcom startups. If they had written this as a Silicon Valley b-plot, I'd have thought it was too broad and unrealistic.
Science fiction authors have proposed that AI will have human like features and emotions, so AI in its deep understanding of human's imagination of AI's behavior holds a mirror up to us of what we think AI will be. It's just the whole of human generated information staring back at you. The people who created and promoted the archetypes of AI long ago and the people who copied them created the AI's personality.
It's the same difficulty as with animals being more likely recognized as intelligent the more humanlike they are. Dog? Easy. Dolphin? Okay. Crow? Maybe. Octopus? Hard.
Why would anyone self-sabotage by creating an intelligence so different from a human that humans have trouble recognizing that it's intelligent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI being goofy This is one take, but I would like to emphasize that you can also interpret this as a terrifying confirmation that current-gen AI is not safe, and is not aligned to human interests, and if we grant these systems too much power, they could do serious harm. For example, connecting a LLM to the internet (like, say, OpenAssistant) when the AI knows how to write code (i.e. viruses) and at least in princip…
I get and agree with what you are saying, but we don't have anything close to actual AI. If you leave chatGTP alone what does it do? Nothing. It responds to prompts and that is it. It doesn't have interests, thoughts and feelings. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
A loop that preserves some state and a conditional is all what it takes to make a simple rule set Turing-complete.
If you leave ChatGPT alone it obviously does nothing. If you loop it to talk to itself? Probably depends on the size of its short-term memory. If you also give it the ability to run commands or code it generates, including to access the Internet, and have it ingest the output? Might get interesting.
Can someone help me understand how (or why) Large Language Models like ChatGPT and Bing/Sydney follow directives at all - or even answer questions for that matter. The recent ChatGPT explainer by Wolfram ( https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-... ) said that it tries to provide a '“reasonable continuation” of whatever text it’s got so far'. How does the LLM "remember" past interactions in the c…