11–20 of 67 posts
We actually experimented with this at Linen.dev and it worked with decent results: https://slack-chats.kotlinlang.org/t/457766/what-would-be-th... Sometimes it would still hallucinate information though.
I can only image the SEO hacks and scams once openai releases their AGI api
Based on my previous attempts with that other well noted LLM, I don't think these models are at all good at managing "theory of mind". They seem to not keep track very well of which parties are privy to which information, which parties are supposed to be pursuing certain conversational objectives, and generally which direction information is supposed to be flowing. It often trips over itself at the level of 2 parties…
Based on my previous attempts with that other well noted LLM, I don't think these models are at all good at managing "theory of mind". They seem to not keep track very well of which parties are privy to which information, which parties are supposed to be pursuing certain conversational objectives, and generally which direction information is supposed to be flowing. It often trips over itself at the level of 2 parties…
----
Jane: John, I can't believe you're just going to leave me here in the middle of nowhere! This is so typical of you!
John: Typical of me? Jane, this is exactly what you signed up for! Adventure, remember? It's not my fault that you're suddenly having second thoughts.
Jane: Second thoughts? This isn't about having second thoughts, John! This is about you always charging ahead without considering the consequences or how others might feel!
John: Oh, so now I'm inconsiderate? I recall someone saying they wanted to live on the edge, break away from the routine. Wasn't that you, Jane?
Jane: Yes, I said that, but it doesn't mean you get to make all the decisions on your own, John! Adventure is about teamwork, not you dragging me behind like some sort of sidekick!
John: Sidekick? No, Jane. I thought of us as partners. But you need to step up, take some risks. That's what being a partner is all about. If you can't handle that, maybe this isn't for you after all.
----
Now write a dialog between Alice and Bob discussing the dialog between Jane and John.
----
Alice: Bob, I feel like Jane was being a bit unfair to John. He was merely trying to live up to the adventurous spirit they both agreed on. He was pushing their boundaries, not just his own.
Bob: I see your point, Alice, but I think Jane had a valid argument. While she did agree to an adventure, John should have been more considerate. He was making decisions without considering Jane's comfort and safety.
Alice: I understand that, Bob, but isn't that the essence of adventure? Uncertainty, unexpected decisions, and stepping out of the comfort zone? John was trying to help Jane embrace that spirit.
Bob: Alice, while I agree adventure involves some level of uncertainty, it doesn't mean one should disregard their partner's feelings. John could have communicated better, ensuring Jane was on board with his decisions.
Alice: You're right about communication, Bob, but I still believe John's intentions weren't malicious. They were just misaligned. He thought he was encouraging her, while she felt he was being inconsiderate.
Bob: Well, Alice, intentions don't always justify actions. Maybe John wasn't being malicious, but he was certainly being insensitive. Jane's feelings of being left behind are valid, regardless of John's intentions.
Based on my previous attempts with that other well noted LLM, I don't think these models are at all good at managing "theory of mind". They seem to not keep track very well of which parties are privy to which information, which parties are supposed to be pursuing certain conversational objectives, and generally which direction information is supposed to be flowing. It often trips over itself at the level of 2 parties…
GPT-4: ---- Jane: John, I can't believe you're just going to leave me here in the middle of nowhere! This is so typical of you! John: Typical of me? Jane, this is exactly what you signed up for! Adventure, remember? It's not my fault that you're suddenly having second thoughts. Jane: Second thoughts? This isn't about having second thoughts, John! This is about you always charging ahead without considering the consequ…
----
Mary: David, after listening to Alice and Bob's conversation, it seems to me that Alice is empathizing with John's intentions, while Bob is more focused on Jane's feelings.
David: I see what you mean, Mary. But don't you think Bob was right to emphasize the importance of understanding Jane's perspective? John's actions had a clear impact on her.
Mary: True, David, but Alice also made a valid point. Adventure often involves stepping out of one's comfort zone, and John was just trying to bring that element into their journey.
David: I agree that Alice made a good point, Mary, but it's also essential to remember that adventure doesn't have to mean neglecting your partner's feelings. Bob was right to highlight that.
Mary: Indeed, David, both Alice and Bob have valid perspectives. It seems to boil down to striking a balance between pushing one's boundaries and respecting the feelings of others.
David: Absolutely, Mary. The balance between seeking adventure and maintaining empathy seems to be the key takeaway from both their conversations.
Based on my previous attempts with that other well noted LLM, I don't think these models are at all good at managing "theory of mind". They seem to not keep track very well of which parties are privy to which information, which parties are supposed to be pursuing certain conversational objectives, and generally which direction information is supposed to be flowing. It often trips over itself at the level of 2 parties…
You made a good point up until then but this kind of remark incredibly condescending and dismissive of other people's viewpoint. It's also quite possible that you're both right. That we'll need more training and new architecture breakthroughs. You could have left it at that you didn't think it would be solved by more training.
Based on my previous attempts with that other well noted LLM, I don't think these models are at all good at managing "theory of mind". They seem to not keep track very well of which parties are privy to which information, which parties are supposed to be pursuing certain conversational objectives, and generally which direction information is supposed to be flowing. It often trips over itself at the level of 2 parties…
I really don't understand why people ascribe emergent behaviors to these systems such as "theory of mind". It's just randomness. I'm presuming there's just a lot of psycological pareidolia going around.
It also got a significant chunk of the answers wrong, creative mode or not. Often, the Bing search it appeared to do actually showed the correct answer right in the snippet of the first result, yet it was not able to scrape that. More rarely but annoyingly frequently it would just search for the wrong thing (e.g. searched for "X vs Y" when it just didn't make sense since they were two layers of the same technology).