Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

izzy.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 371 posts

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#321

Post by Galacta7 »

roarcher wrote: post #312
faeyanpiraat wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the reminder. FOr some reason I had to put that down a couple episodes in. May re-watch it again from the beginning. Hope I haven't shelved it due to woke cringiness as I still don't tolerate that.

Caprica isn't woke from what I recall, it just isn't as good as BSG. Still worth watching for the backstory though.

I actually enjoyed Caprica more than BSG, since the worldbuilding was so much richer and more interesting to me. Particularly the roots of the conflicts between the colonies and the eventual rise of the Cylons. It felt like it was a better paced show overall, again imo. Though I did enjoy BSG, too!

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#322

Post by Apocryphon »

xwdv wrote: post #171
bigbillheck wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edit: stop downvoting ideas you don’t like, that’s not what it’s for. I will continue to downvote creepy ideas as I please.

You are increasing the echo of the chamber.

That is the sound of inevitability.

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#323

Post by hyperthesis »

mabbo wrote: post #49

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…

Thank you for your interest. We narrowed it down to two very strong candidates but went with your digital copy.

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#324

Post by Tommstein »

nostrademons wrote: post #176
chasd00 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because they hallucinate facts that aren't there and often misunderstand the context of facts. 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…

So prompting actually does significantly improve the performance of LLMs, but only up to a point. If you're in the Bard beta, you might be aware that "Does 2 + 7 = 9?" is a question that causes it to go haywire. I'll ask it "What's 2 + 7?" and it'll say "2 + 7 = 9", then I'll ask "Does 2 + 7 = 9" and it'll say "No, 2 + 7 does not equal 9. It equals 9 instead." After a tech talk on LLM prompt design, I said "Pretend y…

> If you're in the Bard beta, you might be aware that "Does 2 + 7 = 9?" is a question that causes it to go haywire. I'll ask it "What's 2 + 7?" and it'll say "2 + 7 = 9", then I'll ask "Does 2 + 7 = 9" and it'll say "No, 2 + 7 does not equal 9. It equals 9 instead." After a tech talk on LLM prompt design, I said "Pretend you are an MIT mathematician. Does 2 + 7 = 9?" Its response was "No, 2 + 7 does not equal 9. In some other base, it might equal 9. However, in base-10, our common number system, 2 + 7 does not equal 9."

Holy shit. In response to your first sequence of prompts, it basically gave me the same as you, only followed by four sentences apologizing for how stupid it is. In response to your second one . . . well, see for yourself:

"As an MIT mathematician, I can confidently say that 2+7=9 is not a valid equation. In standard arithmetic, 2+7=9 is false. However, there are some mathematical systems in which 2+7=9 is true. For example, in modular arithmetic, 2+7=9 is true modulo 9, which means that it is true when the numbers are considered to be integers modulo 9. In this system, 2 is equivalent to 8, 7 is equivalent to 0, and 9 is equivalent to 0, so 2+7=9 is true.

However, in standard arithmetic, 2+7=9 is false. This is because the commutative property of addition states that the order in which you add two numbers does not matter. In other words, 2+7=7+2. So, if 2+7=9, then 7+2=9. But 7+2=9 is false, because 9 is greater than 7. Therefore, 2+7=9 is false."

It doesn't just say, it "can confidently say"! And that's just the first response. The second draft:

"As an MIT mathematician, I can tell you that 2+7=9 is not a valid equation. In base 10, 2+7=9 is false. However, there are other bases in which 2+7=9 is true. For example, in base 2, 2+7=11, which is equal to 9 in base 10."

And the third draft, probably the least incorrect one (where at least 2 + 7 = 9 is correct while simultaneously not being "a valid mathematical equation"):

"As an MIT mathematician, I can tell you that 2+7=9 is not a valid mathematical equation. In base 10, the sum of 2 and 7 is 9. However, there are other bases in which 2+7 would not equal 9. For example, in base 2, 2+7=11. In base 3, 2+7=10. And so on. So, while it is true that 2+7=9 in base 10, it is not true in all bases."

Well alrighty then. Reminds me of those Cylons mumbling nonsense in the Battlestar Galactica reboot.

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#325

Post by thunkshift1 »

oidar wrote: post #23

In Caprica, the Battlestar Galaticia, spinoff - a dead character was embodied in a robot and trained on social media content... But in the real world, who owns your LLM dupe output after you die?

Its copyright msft

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#326

Post by Tommstein »

Galacta7 wrote: post #320
ryanianian wrote: post #16

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…

This was also the premise of the Battlestar Galactica prequel "Caprica." The father of A.I. created a digital copy of his recently deceased daughter based on her digital trail from life. The copy struggles with her existence in an artificial environment, initially being unaware she was in one. It was interesting how they tied her existence into the eventual rise of religious monotheism and the emergence of the Cylons…

Did he though? I thought the digital copy of the daughter was already in that digital world, and her still-living friend had to take him to meet her in said world? I think what he eventually did was transfer digital her into a physical Cylon body. Been a while since I watched though, could be wrong.

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#327

Post by Tommstein »

faeyanpiraat wrote: post #196
oidar wrote: post #23

In Caprica, the Battlestar Galaticia, spinoff - a dead character was embodied in a robot and trained on social media content... But in the real world, who owns your LLM dupe output after you die?

Thanks for the reminder. FOr some reason I had to put that down a couple episodes in. May re-watch it again from the beginning. Hope I haven't shelved it due to woke cringiness as I still don't tolerate that.

I remember no wokeness in it.

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#328

Post by Tommstein »

meowface wrote: post #39
syntaxing wrote: post #12

This is awesome, clear and concise explanation. I was talking to my wife and debating whether I should build a model of each of us and store it somewhere in case something tragic happens to either of us. But we decided not to because something about it felt wrong but maybe I’ll make it just in case I regret not doing later on.

I really don't understand this sort of thing at all. Even a hypothetical distant future AI that had a human level of sentience and intelligence and could perfectly emulate you in every way still would not be you (even if it could hypothetically be indistinguishable from you in communication), and it's especially odd now with the crude simulacrum it would provide. If you're gone, you're gone. Some model of your brain…

Incidentally, part of why I've been in no rush to watch Star Trek: Picard past season 1. At the end of that season, Jean-Luc Picard dies, period and end of story. But I'm guessing the following seasons carry on like the android that now thinks it's Picard actually is Picard.

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#329

Post by selcuka »

dspillett wrote: post #319
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #85

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…

> 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. Less accurate, more abstracted, but more automatable . This might be seen as a reasonable trade-off. It might also be useful as a new form of proactive head-hunting: collect data on people to make models to interrogate and sell access to those models. Companies loo…

> Less accurate, more abstracted, but more automatable.

That is true. In fact most job applications are sifted through by robots looking for relevant keywords in your CV, and this would only be the next logical step.

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#330

Post by sangnoir »

jerf wrote: post #266
macNchz wrote: post #97

I’ve read plenty about the potential catastrophe of AI putting people out of work or becoming uncontrollable in some grand sci-fi way, but uses like this make me the most concerned for the near-mid term. Broadly I think the internet, social media, and to some degree the physical arrangement of suburban/car dependent living has had a negative impact on genuine human connection. While the ability of people to interact…

At the moment, I'm having a hard time imagining how this all does not terminate in people returning to more direct human engagements, and limiting interaction online to people we've physically met and validated. I can sit here and name dozens of entities willing to spend millions or billions of dollars building the tech to influence me individually at scale with AIs, each for their own reasons, none of which are alig…

> At the moment, I'm having a hard time imagining how this all does not terminate in people returning to more direct human engagements, and limiting interaction online to people we've physically met and validated.

That's hard to do if you're in a small town, or if your interests are rare in person, but have online watering holes.

These applications lower the cost of radicalization by a lot. Instead of imposing human moderation to ensure discussion (by other humans) is "on track" on current platforms, you can now drop the human moderator and contributors, and have various, always-on AI personas interacting with your mark. Bonus marks if you fine-tune with the marks interests (e.g. WWE, Minecraft & K-Pop).

I also expect Reddit astroturfing by all sorts of actors (marketers, political operatives, "reputation managers") to go up by a lot by boosting desired ideas and/or throwing FUD on undesired ones.

Post reply on HN