Gorilla: Large Language Model connected with massive APIs

Post by quickthrower2 » Thu, May 25, 2023, 8:29 PM UTC

jimsimmons wrote: post #18

zellyn wrote: post #10

Note: if you read the paper carefully, this is LlaMA-derived, so suffers from the same use restrictions. We really need the open LLMs to catch up!

Realistically you can assume there’ll be one soon and develop with these models and switch over

Post by bioemerl » Thu, May 25, 2023, 8:36 PM UTC

soperj wrote: post #27

bioemerl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If AI becomes harmful we will likely see it in motion and be able to respond and adapt to it. We will live in a world where the humans on the internet are far far far more dangerous than any of these machines. The harms here are relatively small. The only thing AI has is scale, but what's running at a higher scale than humanity? Every site already runs scam filters and handles misinformation. AI won't likely move the…

> If AI becomes harmful we will likely see it in motion and be able to respond and adapt to it. What are you basing this on? > AI won't likely move the needle much because it's going to be less powerful than humans. Won't it just be used to augment the amount of harm that humans can do?

Post by petters » Thu, May 25, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

airgapstopgap wrote: post #19

ethanbond wrote: post #14

Don't worry folks, the years and years of "of course we'd never connect experimental AI systems to the open internet" assurances were never necessary for safe development and deployment. This reassessment was founded on the last several months that showed us these systems are close to 100% dependable, they never deceive humans, they are entirely aligned with human morals (you know, all those morals we all agree on),…

Other than snark, do you have a good argument? We know that technology can be error-prone, and LLMs fail in a great plethora of ways, but you are trying to sell an AI Doom narrative. I have never bought the idea that AI will be airgapped, because the whole paradigm of Yudkowsky at al. is ludicrous and even within it airgapping was a strawman of a technique (they argue that a truly dangerous AI will get itself out reg…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 25, 2023, 8:38 PM UTC

airgapstopgap wrote: post #19

ethanbond wrote: post #14

Don't worry folks, the years and years of "of course we'd never connect experimental AI systems to the open internet" assurances were never necessary for safe development and deployment. This reassessment was founded on the last several months that showed us these systems are close to 100% dependable, they never deceive humans, they are entirely aligned with human morals (you know, all those morals we all agree on),…

Other than snark, do you have a good argument? We know that technology can be error-prone, and LLMs fail in a great plethora of ways, but you are trying to sell an AI Doom narrative. I have never bought the idea that AI will be airgapped, because the whole paradigm of Yudkowsky at al. is ludicrous and even within it airgapping was a strawman of a technique (they argue that a truly dangerous AI will get itself out reg…

Post by ethanbond » Thu, May 25, 2023, 8:47 PM UTC

andrewmutz wrote: post #16

ethanbond wrote: post #14

Don't worry folks, the years and years of "of course we'd never connect experimental AI systems to the open internet" assurances were never necessary for safe development and deployment. This reassessment was founded on the last several months that showed us these systems are close to 100% dependable, they never deceive humans, they are entirely aligned with human morals (you know, all those morals we all agree on),…

Many of us have not been persuaded by the pervasive, kneejerk fear of AI that floods social media. If social media had been around in the past, we'd have never developed trains or electricity or cars because of the crippling fear that something bad might happen along the way.