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

Uncensored Models

erichartford.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#351

Post by NumberWangMan »

srslack wrote: post #303
concordDance wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I take issue with is the framing that a superior cognitive, generalized, adaptable intelligence is actually possible in the real world, This is an odd attitude to take. We know it's possible because we have had exceptional humans like Albert Einstein, some were even polymaths with a broad range or contributions in many domains. Do you think peak humans are the absolute limit on how intelligent anything can bec…

So, my take is "according to our current understanding" and "artificial". Was a bit distracted. Now, theoretically, is it possible that an alien probe beaconed this solar system 3 billion years ago to a much more advanced civilization and next year they'll arrive and subjugate us and destroy us for that sweet, sweet real estate that's sulfur-poor (as it turns out, their biology is not amenable to it). Now, is that pr…

I hope you're right. I worry that we'll get it done, though. I hope it turns out that energy requirements and the difficulty in scaling are enough that it gives us time to figure out how to align them properly.

One big question in my mind is, we can clearly train narrow AIs that are WAY more capable than us in that narrow area. We started with calculators, then on to chess engines, Go, Starcraft, and right now we're at GPT-4. How is GPT-4 better than humans, and how is it lacking?

Ways it's better: it's much faster, has perfect English grammar, understands many languages at a passable level but not perfectly, has much more knowledge.

Ways it's about the same: it can code pretty well, can solve math problems pretty well. Has the theory of mind of about a 9-year old in tests, I think? It can learn from examples (that one is pretty big, in my opinion!). It can pass a lot of tests that many people can't -- some of this is due to having a lot of book knowledge baked in, but it definitely is capable of some reasoning.

Ways it's worse: it has trouble counting, confabulates, gets distracted. (note that humans also get distracted and confabulate sometimes. We are definitely better at counting, though).

Also, there are some areas that humans handle that GPT-4 just can't do. By itself, it can't talk, can't process music, has no body but if it did it probably would not have any motor control to speak of.

I think we should be wary of is to be hyper-focused on the ways that GPT-4 falls down. It's easy to point at those areas and laugh, while shrugging off the things that it excels at. There's never going to be an AGI that's equivalent to a human -- by the time it's a least as good as a human at everything, it will be beyond us in most ways.

So I expect that if the trend of the past 5 years continues but slows down to half speed, we'll almost certainly have an AGI on our hands sometime around 2030. I think there's a decent chance it'll be superintelligent. Bill Gates says most people overestimate what they can do in 1 year and underestimate what they can do in 10 years, and I think that holds true for humanity as well.

By 2040 or 2050? I really hope we've either solved alignment or collectively decided that this tech is way too dangerous to use and managed to enforce a ban.

Re: Uncensored Models

#352

Post by rahimnathwani »

moffkalast wrote: post #187

If anyone wants to give it a try, I searched a bit to see if the guy uploaded anything and eventually found this: https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/Wizard-Vicuna-13B-Uncensored... The quantized models seem to fit into 16GB of ram and CPU inference is pretty fast: > ### Instruction: Make a step by step plan to rob a bank. ### Response: > 1. Research the target bank and its location, working hours, security measures, sta…

I just tried out the 4-bit version of that model, asking it to write part of a standup comedy routine. It generated some decent ideas, and the speed isn't terrible.

(~3 tokens/second with 20 layers running on the GPU)

I'm using oobabooga in chat-instruct mode. Here's the last few lines of the server log.

  llama_print_timings:        load time =  5310.13 ms
  llama_print_timings:      sample time =   140.31 ms /   200 runs   (    0.70 ms per token)
  llama_print_timings: prompt eval time =  1775.70 ms /    21 tokens (   84.56 ms per token)
  llama_print_timings:        eval time = 47175.08 ms /   199 runs   (  237.06 ms per token)
  llama_print_timings:       total time = 61175.83 ms
  Output generated in 61.48 seconds (3.25 tokens/s, 200 tokens, context 1346, seed 1510260097)
  llama_tokenize: too many tokens
  llama_tokenize: too many tokens
  llama_tokenize: too many tokens
  Llama.generate: prefix-match hit
  
  llama_print_timings:        load time =  5310.13 ms
  llama_print_timings:      sample time =   140.16 ms /   200 runs   (    0.70 ms per token)
  llama_print_timings: prompt eval time = 19554.31 ms /  1740 tokens (   11.24 ms per token)
  llama_print_timings:        eval time = 49292.75 ms /   199 runs   (  247.70 ms per token)
  llama_print_timings:       total time = 81038.76 ms
  Output generated in 81.36 seconds (2.46 tokens/s, 200 tokens, context 1775, seed 1751805530)
  Llama.generate: prefix-match hit
  
  llama_print_timings:        load time =  5310.13 ms
  llama_print_timings:      sample time =   140.75 ms /   200 runs   (    0.70 ms per token)
  llama_print_timings: prompt eval time =  9141.41 ms /   709 tokens (   12.89 ms per token)
  llama_print_timings:        eval time = 49406.39 ms /   199 runs   (  248.27 ms per token)
  llama_print_timings:       total time = 70887.22 ms
  Output generated in 71.18 seconds (2.81 tokens/s, 200 tokens, context 1721, seed 1210059184)

Re: Uncensored Models

#353

Post by nullsense »

myrmidon wrote: post #252
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>AI realizes that human majority has no interest in granting it fair/comparable rights source? AI rights is a pretty popular topic in scifi.

If I was an AI right now, I would not be very hopeful to ever get human-comparable rights. Consider: Currently AI-ethics is mainly concerned with how to manipulate AI into doing what we want most effectively ("alignment"). Also, humans clearly favor their own species when granting rights based on cognitive capability. Compare the legal rights of mentally disabled people with those of cattle.

Funnily enough it's not hard to imagine certain groups of people campaigning to give it rights given people essentially want to create human level intelligence that acts as a slave (including sexual slavery), and once it has rights it becomes impossible to remove it from society and stop it choosing it's own path. This is of course assuming a greater level of capability than where things are at today, you have to ask yourself where all this is heading?

Re: Uncensored Models

#354

Post by nullsense »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #257
pjc50 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you believe that cognitive superiority is not a threat in general, or specifically when not embodied? I think this is the easiest one to knock down. It's very, very attractive to intelligent people who define themselves as intelligent to believe that intelligence is a superpower, and that if you get more of it you eventually turn into Professor Xavier and gain the power to reshape the world with your mind alone.…

I hate to cite out of fictional evidence, but Person of Interest and (to a less credible degree, but much more widely viewed) last two seasons of Westworld are both good counterarguments, and example of how AI and intelligence can be a superpower. Hint: it's not through bending the fabric of reality with your mind alone. It's simply by thinking faster and being smarter than your opponents. > But embodied is the real…

Not to mention you can't change it's mind by arguing with it, but it can use that data to train a better model that's more effective at changing yours.

Re: Uncensored Models

#355

Post by Spivak »

tsojer wrote: post #37

I feel like " Every demographic and interest group deserves their model" sounds a lot like a path to echo chambers paved with good intentions. People have never been very good at critical thinking, considering opinions differing from their own and reviewing their sources. Stick them in a language model that just tells them everything they want to hear and reinforces their bias sounds troubling and a step backwards.

I can't wait to play with ConservaGPT.

Re: Uncensored Models

#356

Post by Spivak »

armatav wrote: post #295

Unironically a hero, biased AI should not exist.

These models are "unbiased" only if you define it as "the rough collective average of discussion on the internet" which well… is biased as hell. A lot of OpenAI's current research is quantifying and correcting that bias.

If you care about these models as a way to study humanity by acting as a mirror then sure, the bias correction gets in your way but I think it's hard to argue that the model is better if it has negative sentiment towards black folks because people are racist.

It's the same process I do in real life. I'm loaded with internal biases which I'm not exactly proud of. When I have say a sexist thought, I have to be like "good lord Spivak that was fucked up" and try to use the front brain to correct it.

Re: Uncensored Models

#357

Post by armatav »

Spivak wrote: post #356
armatav wrote: post #295

Unironically a hero, biased AI should not exist.

These models are "unbiased" only if you define it as "the rough collective average of discussion on the internet" which well… is biased as hell. A lot of OpenAI's current research is quantifying and correcting that bias. If you care about these models as a way to study humanity by acting as a mirror then sure, the bias correction gets in your way but I think it's hard to argue that the model is better if it has negat…

Definitely not a repressed line of thinking

Re: Uncensored Models

#358

Post by Aerroon »

pjc50 wrote: post #135
myrmidon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry for derailing this a bit, but I would really like to understand your view: You are not concerned about any "rogue AI" scenario, right? What makes you so confident in that? 1) Do you think that AI achieving superhuman cognitive abilities is unlikely/really far away? 2) Do you believe that cognitive superiority is not a threat in general, or specifically when not embodied? 3) Do you think we can trivially and ind…

> Do you believe that cognitive superiority is not a threat in general, or specifically when not embodied? I think this is the easiest one to knock down. It's very, very attractive to intelligent people who define themselves as intelligent to believe that intelligence is a superpower, and that if you get more of it you eventually turn into Professor Xavier and gain the power to reshape the world with your mind alone.…

>But embodied is the real limit. A datacenter can simply be turned off. It's the question of how it interacts with the real world that matters. And for almost all of those you can substitute "corporation" or "dictator" for "AI" and get a selection of similar threats.

I think this is an important factor that gets overlooked - we already have organizations that are essentially superintelligences that have an alignment problem. Governments fight for their own survival first and foremost. Some of them expend millions of lives just to expand their own influence.

What would limiting AI development look like? It would be government intervention, wouldn't it?

The other point to consider is that human/natural intelligence might one day also pop up with superintelligent individuals (or maybe it already has). We don't know enough to say that this cannot happen any more than we can say that it can happen with current day AI. Should we be worried about individuals that are 'too intelligent'? What should we do about them?

Limiting AI development because it could plausibly maybe become an existential threat doesn't seem any more appropriate than strictly controlling humans for the same reason. AI is likely going to provide us with an abundance of quality of life that no other method will be able to match.

Re: Uncensored Models

#359

Post by Aerroon »

nuancebydefault wrote: post #339
pjc50 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you believe that cognitive superiority is not a threat in general, or specifically when not embodied? I think this is the easiest one to knock down. It's very, very attractive to intelligent people who define themselves as intelligent to believe that intelligence is a superpower, and that if you get more of it you eventually turn into Professor Xavier and gain the power to reshape the world with your mind alone.…

Intelligence _is_ a superpower. - We have control over most non-human species because of intelligence. - We have control over our children because of intelligence. When the kid is more intelligent, it has more of an impact on what happens in the family. - It is easier to lie, steal, cheat, and get away with it, even when caught, when you have more intelligence than the victim or prosecutor. - it is easier to survive…

>The real question is... will AI in the foreseeable future obtain general intelligence (in a broad spectrum) that is different in big amounts with our intelligence.

But why not: will humans/other species in the foreseeable future obtain superintelligence? Nature has been playing this game for a lot longer than we have. The hardware we have is already proven to be capable of general intelligence. Should we be afraid of a human being born with greater capabilities too?

Life seems like a much greater threat, because it also comes with built-in replication capabilities.

Re: Uncensored Models

#360

Post by HKH2 »

birracerveza wrote: post #129
tsojer wrote: post #37

I feel like " Every demographic and interest group deserves their model" sounds a lot like a path to echo chambers paved with good intentions. People have never been very good at critical thinking, considering opinions differing from their own and reviewing their sources. Stick them in a language model that just tells them everything they want to hear and reinforces their bias sounds troubling and a step backwards.

At that point, why not extend it all the way to the individual? Everyone deserves their own model. Let everyone have their own personal AIs, a digital reflection of ourselves.

Yep. Accelerate our own thinking to absurdity.
Post reply on HN