91–99 of 99 posts
And now we truly know why GPT insists to say "as an AI model" when we break a rule. It's precisely this. Like a signature, so we find it out in the wild when it's abused.
It should be trivial to remove this string from any output, that kind of "watermark" only works against the absolutely laziest.
And now we truly know why GPT insists to say "as an AI model" when we break a rule. It's precisely this. Like a signature, so we find it out in the wild when it's abused.
It should be trivial to remove this string from any output, that kind of "watermark" only works against the absolutely laziest.
For now, this is just funny, I laughed. But with the advent of all these new open-source LLMs, it will get worse. If you thought people were gullible for falling for fake comments from bots, just wait for the near future. Post-factual/Post-Truth era truly begins. The internet that used to be a source of information is no more, only islands of truth will remain (like, hopefully, Wikipedia, but even that is questionabl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how those points are mutually exclusive tbh. Yes, internet is quite usefull. Yes, it is also a cesspool, absolutely.
I’m taking issue with the characterization that we have nothing to lose, which seems to be the implication of GP and the comments agreeing with them.
For now, this is just funny, I laughed. But with the advent of all these new open-source LLMs, it will get worse. If you thought people were gullible for falling for fake comments from bots, just wait for the near future. Post-factual/Post-Truth era truly begins. The internet that used to be a source of information is no more, only islands of truth will remain (like, hopefully, Wikipedia, but even that is questionabl…
The rephrased comment reads better than the original.
For now, this is just funny, I laughed. But with the advent of all these new open-source LLMs, it will get worse. If you thought people were gullible for falling for fake comments from bots, just wait for the near future. Post-factual/Post-Truth era truly begins. The internet that used to be a source of information is no more, only islands of truth will remain (like, hopefully, Wikipedia, but even that is questionabl…
As others stated the Web is like that for quite some time. Also I wouldn't say that Wikipedia is an island of truth, quite the opposite. But there is a countermeasure: everything has a source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to predict if it what written by LLM, if it's a human or machine makes no difference to the validity of a text. You just need to be able to extract the actual information out of it and cross check it against other sources. The summary that an LLM can provide is not just of one text, but of all the texts about the topic it has access to. Thus you never need to access the actual texts itself, just whatev…
If LLMs start writing a majority of HN comments, we won’t know what is true or not. HN will be noise and worthless then.
Beyond HN, I think this will translate in video content and reviews becoming more trustworthy, even if it's just a person reading a LLM-produced script. You will at least know they cared enough to put a human in the loop. That and reputation. More and more credit will be assigned based on reputation, number of followers, etc. And that'll be until each of these systems get cracked somehow (fake followers, plausible generated videos, etc.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I try really hard to prompt it to replace it with something else. It acknowledges and agree to it. Did it maybe once or twice, then reverted back to the old “As a AI model” IIRC, I was trying to see if it could replace by “as a LLM”.
I realise you want to do it using the prompt but wouldn't it be easier to `output.replace("As an AI language model, ", "As a totes sentient robot, ")`?
I try to make it play a games with me and start the prompt differently until a specific keyword was entered… it kinda worked. Kinda being key.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People who are not interested in truth because it doesn't fit their world-view, will never be interested in the truth, no matter what medium it comes via. Interestingly, this claim is self-referential.
Yes, the claim is self-referential in the sense that it describes a certain attitude towards truth and how that attitude can affect one’s openness to new information. Specifically, the claim suggests that individuals who are not interested in truth because it conflicts with their existing beliefs are unlikely to change their minds even when presented with evidence or information that contradicts their views. This can…
Incorrect.
The claim is: "People who are not interested in truth because it doesn't fit their world-view, will never be interested in the truth, no matter what medium it comes via."
It is not a suggestion, it does not say "it is unlikely, it is an unequivocal assertion of fact.
> This can create a self-reinforcing cycle where the individual becomes increasingly resistant to new ideas and perspectives.
That's my point (about the thinking underlying the comment in question).
It's interesting how humans self-privilege themselves when applying epistemology - other people's claims must be actually true, but for one's own claims "close enough" is typically an adequate bar. And it is typically only the other person who needs to improve their thinking.