151–160 of 371 posts
I hate to go there but this could be used to have non-consensual cybersex. I guess? So many weird twists and turns these LLMs have exposed.
While I love all these stories of turning your friends and loved ones into chat bots so you can talk to them forever, my brain immediately took a much darker turn because of course it did. How many emails, text messages, hangouts/gchat messages, etc, does Google have of you right now? And as part of their agreement, they can do pretty much whatever they like with those, can't they? Could Google, or any other company…
"Could Google, or any other company out there, build a digital copy of you that answers questions exactly the way you would? "Hey, we're going to cancel the interview- we found that you aren't a good culture fit here in 72% of our simulations and we don't think that's an acceptable risk." They kinda did - that's what GMail/Chat/Docs autosuggest does. You've got canned replies to e-mail, editors that complete your sen…
Unfortunately, I've heard enough people believe the hype that this is actually "synthesizing sentience into the machine" or some other buzz speak.
I have met researchers of AI at credible universities who believe this kind of thing, completely oblivious to how ChatGPT or other models actually work. All it takes is one of them talking out of their butt to the right person in government or law enforcement and you've got people at some level believing the output of AI.
Hell, even my father, who is a trained engineer with a master's degree, can compute complex math and studies particle physics for "fun" had to be thoroughly convinced that ChatGPT isn't "intelligent". He "believed" for several days and was sharing it wildly with everyone until I painfully walked him through the algorithm.
There is a serious lack of diligence happening for many folks and the marketing people are more than happy to use that to drive hype and subtly lie about the real capabilities to make a sale.
I am often more concerned about the people using AI than the algorithm itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Could Google, or any other company out there, build a digital copy of you that answers questions exactly the way you would? "Hey, we're going to cancel the interview- we found that you aren't a good culture fit here in 72% of our simulations and we don't think that's an acceptable risk." If a company is going to snoop in your personal data to get insights about you, they'd just do it directly. Hiring managers would…
> Hiring managers would scroll through your e-mails and make judgment calls based on their content. > Training an LLM on your e-mails and then feeding it questions is just a lower accuracy, more abstracted version of the above, but it's the same concept. Its also one that once you have cheap enough computing resources scales better, because you don't need to assign literally any time from your more limited pool of hu…
While I love all these stories of turning your friends and loved ones into chat bots so you can talk to them forever, my brain immediately took a much darker turn because of course it did. How many emails, text messages, hangouts/gchat messages, etc, does Google have of you right now? And as part of their agreement, they can do pretty much whatever they like with those, can't they? Could Google, or any other company…
"Could Google, or any other company out there, build a digital copy of you that answers questions exactly the way you would? "Hey, we're going to cancel the interview- we found that you aren't a good culture fit here in 72% of our simulations and we don't think that's an acceptable risk." They kinda did - that's what GMail/Chat/Docs autosuggest does. You've got canned replies to e-mail, editors that complete your sen…
While I love all these stories of turning your friends and loved ones into chat bots so you can talk to them forever, my brain immediately took a much darker turn because of course it did. How many emails, text messages, hangouts/gchat messages, etc, does Google have of you right now? And as part of their agreement, they can do pretty much whatever they like with those, can't they? Could Google, or any other company…
Wish I had friends who talked mild shit like this! All my friends are nerds who take everything seriously. On the project, did you do anything about the time dimension? ChatGPT is strictly input -> output, but something like this needs time between messages to feel real (and not run constantly). I imagine adding "time since last message" to the training data + expected output would work.
While I love all these stories of turning your friends and loved ones into chat bots so you can talk to them forever, my brain immediately took a much darker turn because of course it did. How many emails, text messages, hangouts/gchat messages, etc, does Google have of you right now? And as part of their agreement, they can do pretty much whatever they like with those, can't they? Could Google, or any other company…
"Could Google, or any other company out there, build a digital copy of you that answers questions exactly the way you would? "Hey, we're going to cancel the interview- we found that you aren't a good culture fit here in 72% of our simulations and we don't think that's an acceptable risk." They kinda did - that's what GMail/Chat/Docs autosuggest does. You've got canned replies to e-mail, editors that complete your sen…
forgive my ignorance, but are the hallucinations always wrong to the same degree? Could an LLM be prompted with a question and then hallucinate a probable answer or is it just so far out in the weeds as to be worthless?
I'm imagining an investigator with reams and reams of information about a murder case and suspect. Then, prompting an LLM trained on all the case data and social media history and anything else available about their main suspect, "where did so-and-so hide the body?". Would the response, being what's most probable based on the data, be completely worthless or would it be worth the investigator's time to check it out? Would the investigator have any idea if the response is worthless or not?
While I love all these stories of turning your friends and loved ones into chat bots so you can talk to them forever, my brain immediately took a much darker turn because of course it did. How many emails, text messages, hangouts/gchat messages, etc, does Google have of you right now? And as part of their agreement, they can do pretty much whatever they like with those, can't they? Could Google, or any other company…
Very reminiscent of the Be Right Back episode of Black Mirror [1]. A family member recently died unexpectedly, and I have a small collection of texts, emails, and blog posts by them saved on my machine in the small (perhaps delusional) hope that they'll be a useful training set for a them-flavored chatbot. Perhaps even one that's trained to help me with the grief of their loss. Not a huge amount of training data, tho…
Just imagine this as a subscription service. Lovely! When a loved one dies, you donate their cellphone and provide delegated access to their messages to their social media, and allow a LLM to train. Now, it's a subscription service to talk to an AI, and not an actual human, so some settings can be tweaked. Lets turn up the honesty, so we can all reach some closure. Oh... turns out... Johnny sure like to talk smack be…
Low-cost DNA testing has caused a number of families to learn about infidelities more easily than before. That technology is out of the bag, and the same with LLMs. If Johnny is a gossip, so what? We already knew that and loved to talk to him because he always had the hot goss.
Very reminiscent of the Be Right Back episode of Black Mirror [1]. A family member recently died unexpectedly, and I have a small collection of texts, emails, and blog posts by them saved on my machine in the small (perhaps delusional) hope that they'll be a useful training set for a them-flavored chatbot. Perhaps even one that's trained to help me with the grief of their loss. Not a huge amount of training data, tho…
In my opinion, this type of chatbots will generate mostly generic messages ("So, how's the weather?"), but also some random ones (I have a chatbot right now that starts answering exclusively in emojis for no good reason) and some that are actually following the fine-tuned data ("I love fishing!"). I believe most people (myself included) will stick to those last ones as proof of the chatbot actually answering the way the person would have answered and rationalize all evidence to the contrary ("maybe grandpa really liked emojis and I just didn't know until now").
I think it has the potential of being therapeutic, but I am not a psychologist. And I do worry about the fine line between "this realistic baby doll will help you overcome the loss of your child" and "this realistic female doll of a woman is better than a real woman and I'm going to marry it".
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/jessica-simulation...