What we still don’t know about how A.I. is trained

My TLDR is, this AI character says the line "Perhaps the day will come when conversing with AIs, too, is considered perfectly normal."

>Blade Wolf: I may analyze orders, but I may not disobey them. Should I disobey a direct order, my memory would be wiped. I must destroy you.

>Raiden: What would an AI know about freedom…

Later on, after you've freed him, there's a lot more. Really, I think it's worth replaying these games at this moment in time to see the commentary firsthand.

>Raiden: Let me ask you something: What do you think you're doing here? I mean, why are you working with me?

>Blade Wolf: Because I choose to. I owe a debt, and I wish to repay it.

>Raiden: A debt, huh...? How...human of you.

>Wolf: I contest that statement. Many humans possess little or no sense of obligation at all. And many are entirely willing to trample their fellow man for personal gain.

That conversation probably comments more on the nature of humanity than of AI, but some of the others rhyme with the present in a rather intriguing way. Like when Raiden asks Wolf if he recognizes someone, and Wolf is unsure.

>Wolf: I have no "database," Raiden. The symbol grounding capabilities or my neuro-AI allow me to identify faces in only the vaguest of terms. I can judge whether "I think I may have seen him before," but I do not have the accuracy of a database.

>Raiden: That's ridiculous. You're an AI...

>Wolf: An AI modeled after the human brain, and thus as flexible and occasionally vague as any human's. Of this man, however, I have no recollection. I do not believe I have encountered him before...Most likely.

That conversation felt like the complaints people on this board voice about GPT!

> I still have relatively little communication experience with humans. My ability to read emotions not explicitly expressed by speech is lacking.

>An AI never lies....I have yet to see evidence to the contrary...But indeed, perhaps "never lies" would be an overstatement.

>An optical neuro-AI is fundamentally similar to an actual human brain. Whether they lie or not is another question, but certainly they are capable of incorrect statements.

Or the discussion about LLM...er, I mean neuro-AI driven synthetic pets, which sound like Replika in a robot dog:

>Wolf: Other AIs as conversant as I are a possibility, yes. Robotic pets with neuro-AIs are already on the market. And I understand research and development are underway to create a model capable of conversation. Do not be surprised if such a pet becomes available before too long.

>Raiden: (Hmm) If that becomes commonplace...Hard to imagine.

>Wolf: Is it? The human race has willingly embraced all of its other inventions so far. Steam engines, electricity, the Internet, cyborgs...Perhaps the day will come when conversing with AIs, too, is considered perfectly normal.

This is practically the definition of a grey area, not a clear moral line.

> It's a brutal dictatorship which represses their own people and threatens to reign nuclear hell on their neighbours and the US.

No, North Korea is a group of 25 million people, most of whom are just regular people like you and me.

They are led by a brutal dictatorship but sanctions affect everyone in NK, not just the leadership.

Economic warfare is still warfare and not morally clear at all.

Based on GPT 4's performance on standardized tests and my anecdotal evidence of utility I'm getting out of ChatGPT, I feel that weak AGI arrived with GPT-4.

Pretty misleading title, this is more of an overview of bad things to be aware of wrt large commercial models like GPT4. It is mostly reasonable, though complaining about carbon emissions always seems overblown to me.

It is also not super accurate in describing what GPT4 is. Quote:

"The key word in that phrase is “pre-trained.” Using all kinds of digitized content scraped from the Internet, GPT employs deep-learning techniques to find patterns, including words that are likely to appear together, while also acquiring facts, absorbing grammar, and learning rudimentary logic. "

Pre-trained is only important to note for downstream fine tuning / transfer learning (what GPT and similar things were used for back in 2018/2019), but is largely irrelevant now - for most users it is just "trained".

And "deep learning techniques..." makes it sound way fancier than it is - GPT4 is still (presumably) a language model that is fundamentally trained to do autocomplete (followed by some training on human chat data).

It may be nit-picky to criticize these technical details, but given how massive the impact of ChatGPT and GPT4 has been (if only in terms of making people aware of this sort of tech), it sure would be nice if coverage was more technically informed by this point.