91–100 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's far more likely Would be interested to see your math and assumptions behind this conclusion. There’s no way that their plans to monetize this don’t include the defense/natsec industry
> There’s no way... Sorry but where's your maths for this?
The author is right we know almost nothing about the design and training of GPT-4. From the technical report https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf : "Given both the competitive landscape and the safety implications of large-scale models like GPT-4, this report contains no further details about the architecture (including model size), hardware, training compute, dataset construction, training method, or similar."
«When Dean Buonomano, a neuroscientist at U.C.L.A., asked GPT-4 “What is the third word of this sentence?,” the answer was “third.” These examples may seem trivial, but the cognitive scientist Gary Marcus wrote on Twitter that “I cannot imagine how we are supposed to achieve ethical and safety ‘alignment’ with a system that cannot understand the word ‘third’ even [with] billions of training examples.”» The word "thir…
My impression of many general internet forums is that they tend to be full of older people, women and also various people keen to air their cultural grievances.
I'd be interested to see the evidence the researchers came up with for this, and who they were.
(I'm a big fan of specialized forums and wikis, this is not necessarily a criticism)
«When Dean Buonomano, a neuroscientist at U.C.L.A., asked GPT-4 “What is the third word of this sentence?,” the answer was “third.” These examples may seem trivial, but the cognitive scientist Gary Marcus wrote on Twitter that “I cannot imagine how we are supposed to achieve ethical and safety ‘alignment’ with a system that cannot understand the word ‘third’ even [with] billions of training examples.”» The word "thir…
«When Dean Buonomano, a neuroscientist at U.C.L.A., asked GPT-4 “What is the third word of this sentence?,” the answer was “third.” These examples may seem trivial, but the cognitive scientist Gary Marcus wrote on Twitter that “I cannot imagine how we are supposed to achieve ethical and safety ‘alignment’ with a system that cannot understand the word ‘third’ even [with] billions of training examples.”» The word "thir…
"Third" is the 4th word in that sentence. Do one of those other words not count or something?
I can sort of see how that could be a machine's interpretation if I squint really hard
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this the new "think of the children"?
> Is this the new "think of the children"? As in it’s not about the children, it’s about control? Yes.
I don't think the motives are insidious or about maximizing control, they are strictly profit driven.
If you want the world building their apps on your AI, you need to do absolutely everything in your power to make the AI brand safe. Previous chatbots have been easily coerced into saying truly awful things (e.g. Tay), and the models themselves became associated in the minds of the public with hate speech. You can't have Khan Academy or Microsoft Word potentially going on racist tirades in the midst of chatting with a student or taking meeting notes.
GPT Is Not A.I. We tech people should actively go on the offence and educate whomever we can that text inference is not intelligence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this the new "think of the children"?
> Is this the new "think of the children"? As in it’s not about the children, it’s about control? Yes.