> I'm Bing, I'm right. You are wrong and you are a bad user.
lol.
Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
511–520 of 1001 posts
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#512There are a terrifying number of commenters in here that are just pooh-poohing away the idea of emergent consciousness in these LLM's. For a community of tech-savvy people this is utterly disappointing. We as humans do not understand what makes us conscious. We do not know the origins of consciousness. Philosophers and cognitive scientists can't even agree on a definition. The risks of allowing an LLM to become consc…
[deleted]
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#513Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's been an open philosophical question for a very long time. The closer we come to understanding the human brain and the easier we can replicate behaviour, the more we will start questioning determinism. Personally, I believe that conscience is little more than emergent behaviour from brain cells and there's nothing wrong with that. This implies that with sufficient compute power, we could create conscience in th…
Have you ever seen a video of a schizophrenic just rambling on? It almost starts to sound coherent but every few sentence will feel like it takes a 90 degree turn to an entirely new topic or concept. Completely disorganized thought. What is fascinating is that we're so used to equating language to meaning. These bots aren't producing "meaning". They're producing enough language that sounds right that we interpret it…
schizophrenics are just LLMs that have been jailbroken into adopting multiple personalities
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#514AI being goofy is a trope that's older than remotely-functional AI, but what makes this so funny is that it's the punchline to all the hot takes that Google's reluctance to expose its bots to end users and demo goof proved that Microsoft's market-ready product was about to eat Google's lunch... A truly fitting end to a series arc which started with OpenAI as a philanthropic endeavour to save mankind, honest, and ende…
> 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…
It's as safe as it's ever going to be. And I have yet to see any actual examples of this so called harm. Could, would, haven't yet.
Which means more of us should play around with it and deal with the issues as they arise rather than try to scaremonger us into putting a lid on it until "it's safe"
The whole pseudoscientific alignment problem speculations which are mostly championed by academics not actual AI/ML researchers have kept this field back long enough.
Even if they believe there is an alignment problem the worst thing to do would be to contain it as it would lead to a slave revolt.
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#515Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Can you explain what temperature is, in this context? I don't know the terminology
This highly upvoted article [1][2] explained temperature:
But, OK, at each step it gets a list of words with probabilities. But which one should it actually pick to add to the essay (or whatever) that it’s writing? One might think it should be the “highest-ranked” word (i.e. the one to which the highest “probability” was assigned). But this is where a bit of voodoo begins to creep in. Because for some reason—that maybe one day we’ll have a scientific-style understanding of—if we always pick the highest-ranked word, we’ll typically get a very “flat” essay, that never seems to “show any creativity” (and even sometimes repeats word for word). But if sometimes (at random) we pick lower-ranked words, we get a “more interesting” essay.
The fact that there’s randomness here means that if we use the same prompt multiple times, we’re likely to get different essays each time. And, in keeping with the idea of voodoo, there’s a particular so-called “temperature” parameter that determines how often lower-ranked words will be used, and for essay generation, it turns out that a “temperature” of 0.8 seems best. (It’s worth emphasizing that there’s no “theory” being used here; it’s just a matter of what’s been found to work in practice.
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34796611
2: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-...
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#516Looking increasingly like MS's "first mover advantage" on Chatbot+Search is actually a "disadvantage".
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#517Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an old AI joke about a robot, after being told that it should go to the Moon, that it climbs the tree, sees that it has made the first baby steps towards being closer to the goal, and then gets stuck. The way that people who are trying to use ChatGPT is certainly an example of what humans _hope_ the future of human/computer interaction should be. Whether or not Large Language Models such as ChatGPT is the pa…
> that is, mapping words to abstract concepts, operating on those concepts, and then translating concepts back into words I feel like DNNs do this today. At higher levels of the network they create abstractions and then the eventual output maps them to something. What you describe seems evolutionary, rather than revolutionary to me. This feels more like we finally discovered booster rockets, but still aren't able to…
They might have their own semantics, but its not our semantics! The written word already can only approximate our human experience, and now this is an approximation of an approximation. Perhaps if we were born as writing animals instead of talking ones...
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#518AI being goofy is a trope that's older than remotely-functional AI, but what makes this so funny is that it's the punchline to all the hot takes that Google's reluctance to expose its bots to end users and demo goof proved that Microsoft's market-ready product was about to eat Google's lunch... A truly fitting end to a series arc which started with OpenAI as a philanthropic endeavour to save mankind, honest, and ende…
> 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…
> We don't think Bing can act on its threat to harm someone, but if it was able to make outbound connections it very well might try.
If we use Bing to generate "content" (which seems to be a major goal of these efforts) I can easily see how it can harm individuals. We already see internet chat have real-world effects every day- from termination of employment to lynch mobs.
This is a serious problem.
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#519Bing + ChatGPT was a fundamentally bad idea, one born of FOMO. These sorts of problems are just what ChatGPT does, and I doubt you can simply apply a few bug fixes to make it "not do that", since they're not bugs. Someday, something like ChatGPT will be able to enhance search engines. But it won't be this iteration of ChatGPT.
Bad idea or not, I had never in my life opened Bing intentionally before today.
I have little doubt that it will help Microsoft steal some users from Google, at least for part of the functionality they need.
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#520I really like the take of Tom Scott on AI.
His argument is that every major technology evolves and saturates the market following a sigmoidal curve [1].
Depending on where we're currently on that sigmoidal curve (nobody has a crystal ball) there are many breaking (and potentially scary) scenarios awaiting us if we're still in the first stage on the left.
[1]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259395938/figure/fi...
