Live data from Hacker News

GPT-4 details leaked?

threadreaderapp.com

521–530 of 648 posts

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#521
post #413
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet that open models win in the end because porn. There is already very weird and vibrant community creating "waifus" and tinkering with these models.

Porn could definitely be a killer app for LLMs, and I strongly hope that open source models win out for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure it will happen. Microsoft and OpenAI have quickly gone to great lengths to try and limit the amount of output they find offensive, and those efforts have been fairly well received by the general public. Despite the size of the regular online porn industry, it still gets strangl…

> Microsoft and OpenAI have quickly gone to great lengths to try and limit the amount of output they find offensive, and those efforts have been fairly well received by the general public.

it offends me. i think many find this neutering annoying. and many more will. i think bing chat is fine this way, and for the general public, but if i'm paying to access the gpt api, there should be an uncensored version. i'm an adult. i can handle 'offensive' things. it's offensive telling me i'm not allowed to see 'offensive' things.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way I am going to spin up my own worse LLM so a few people will make less money. Even if it was 1-5% better. It's just not worth the time.

It's not "a few people making less money", it's a few gigantic monoliths carving up the future, like blind watch-destroying gods -- or at least wanting to, no matter how nicely they dress it up. And it's not about utility or chance of success for everyone, either, but rather trying to do something in an ethical or more clean way just because that's more fun for them. But I have to admit to being an idealist, and whil…

Wow. Beautifully articulated.

What a pleasant reply to read. I don’t have an argument regarding my position other than I agree that what you’re saying is true and that getting people like me to care and make sacrifices not just today but every day in a long term way is what makes hard problems hard.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just add epicycles.

Add enough epicycles and you've got a Fourier transform... Epicycles were a great idea but applied for the wrong reason.

Compressing millenia of astronomical observations into the compound of three or four sinusoidal waves whose formulae could be carried and calculated in a pocket book?

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#524
post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just theorizing from the top-level post here. No clue if it's legitimate.

To be clear, you just made up MoE details while MoE is actually well established and hails from decades old research?

This is common behavior for inference based learners who don’t hail from strong academic backgrounds. Many developers who are self taught utilize a similar method of learning, essentially using pattern recognition to make “educated guesses” that are then internalized as potential facts and tested at the earliest opportunity. In this instance the test was to project the incorrect information out onto a public forum containing experts and using the presence of contradiction as weak evidence to the validity of their newfound knowledge.

Yes, this is done in lieu of actually looking up extended details on what something means. It has it’s advantages though.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm tired of science as a religion. People treat it as some gospel, like if you check out some criterions you're suddenly "scientific" and instantly get a sense of validity and authority that you shouldn't logically get. I judge things as "what you can do", not "what can you predict". The only demonstration of knowledge and understanding is being able to do something. Not predict. Not "scientific method" and ridiculo…

Science is not academia. You say you prefer to judge things as "what you can do". Well, how do you judge "what you can do"? Astrologists, homeopaths, podiatrists, Christian scientists (!!!) and other such "heretics and mad men" rejected by the scientific establishment, will all tell you that they "can do" stuff, and so will all their many paying customers. How do we know they can't do what they say? Because science g…

Placebos are known to work. I neither overestimate nor underestimate them. I understand them for what they are: placebos. And some people actually need them.

Moreover, in social contexts, religion also "works" in many senses. A person asked me what me what can he do about depression and feeling of meaninglessness. Science would prescribe anti-depressants, medicate him and he would both have side-effects and the problem would never be cured. I suggested that if he were religious, the meaninglessness would immediately go away and he would need no medication, no external interventions.

So again, judging religion by "what can it do", it can successfully give people meanings. Which is quite non-trivial thing that science fails to do to many people. So religion can be presumed to be acting on some truths regarding what drives and gives people meanings. Religion successfully demonstrated an understanding of that, you don't need statistical analysis or peer review to see that, it's plainly obvious. That knowledge just doesn't carry on to other stuff like how celestial bodies move, and there's no reason to think it does.

I love how you're the spokesperson for "science".

Ironically, when you look at how you describe the merits of peer review, you sound quite like an instrumentalist yourself.

Also quite ironically, the new science religion keep on pushing this funny narrative that science is about "being wrong all the time" which is like the complete opposite of scientific history. All of the established science is just the successes. Look at the great physicists. There is no mistake in Newton's laws. Or in Einstein's. They are just as valid today as they have been back then, in the areas where they were demonstrated and studied.

How did we reach this apologetic science? "good scientist will be wrong all the time"? That sounds like gaslighting scientists in a failed system rather than accurate historical statement. Science advances because someone eventually succeeds. In the grand scheme of things, there are no mistakes. There are corrections, there are expanding the domain of applicability. But the mistakes are sent to the trashbin of history, and if a failed system decided to gaslight you into rationalizing failure, stop listening to it and start seeking success.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#526
post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, you just made up MoE details while MoE is actually well established and hails from decades old research?

This is common behavior for inference based learners who don’t hail from strong academic backgrounds. Many developers who are self taught utilize a similar method of learning, essentially using pattern recognition to make “educated guesses” that are then internalized as potential facts and tested at the earliest opportunity. In this instance the test was to project the incorrect information out onto a public forum co…

> It has its advantages though.

Seems the advantage is somewhat localized to the individual inference-based learner; it doesn't seem like a pro-social strategy which would optimize benefit to the group. Overall this seems like it would generalize to widespread misinformation if the majority of uses adopted this behavior.

I'm guessing it's in the best interests of the wider group to try to minimize the occurrence of this type of participation.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#527
post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as in not giving out dangerous answers that get people killed Literally taken, that is quite close to impossible. It was news days ago of somebody who committed suicide after having an interaction with a bot about nuclear risks or similar. To avoid that, the bot would have to be a high-ranking professional psychologist with an explicit purpose not to trigger destructive reactions. And that would fail the nature of…

> To avoid that, the bot would have to be a high-ranking professional psychologist with an explicit purpose not to trigger destructive reactions. Sounds fairly dooable, TBH, given what else they're doing reasonably well at. > And that would fail the nature of a "consultant", which is something "under best effort to speak the truth" - incompatible direction with "something reassuring". I don't think they're as incompa…

With reference to the case I mentioned (which seems like a decent border case to point out difficulties), what you want as a consultant is something that tells you "the likelihood of the event is bound to this and that", not something that goes "Oh, everything will be all right, dear". Outside figurative: truth (say, facts, or instances of computation) and comfort may not always be compatible.

> reasonably well

But I wrote «high-ranking professional». «Reasonably well» does not cover the cases relevant to full safety.

And, by the way, such attitude will backfire heavily on false positives.

Anyway: the case presented is there to point to a few difficulties involved in the idea of «not giving out dangerous answers».

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I can't conceive of such failure mode thus we're safe"

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean...

I think they read the first line of your reply and took it as you arguing that it's nearly impossible for an LLM to give output that would get someone killed.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is common behavior for inference based learners who don’t hail from strong academic backgrounds. Many developers who are self taught utilize a similar method of learning, essentially using pattern recognition to make “educated guesses” that are then internalized as potential facts and tested at the earliest opportunity. In this instance the test was to project the incorrect information out onto a public forum co…

> It has its advantages though. Seems the advantage is somewhat localized to the individual inference-based learner; it doesn't seem like a pro-social strategy which would optimize benefit to the group. Overall this seems like it would generalize to widespread misinformation if the majority of uses adopted this behavior. I'm guessing it's in the best interests of the wider group to try to minimize the occurrence of t…

The advantages in a social setting lie in the introduction of entropy, that is _creativity_, to a community. In a rigorous academic setting and with proper training these individuals are more likely identify links between ideas or information that may not seem obvious at first, and tend to be your more 'eccentric' academics.

For the interests of the wider group, the best outcome is to help these individuals refine their communication to make it clear when information they present is unsubstantiated inference as opposed to verified knowledge.

Once the proper 'rules of engagement' are outlined the contributions of these individuals is an oftentimes useful 'ingredient' to the success of many enterprises.

Re: GPT-4 details leaked?

#530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If the answer is wrong, perhaps you could post a correction so that we are all better off, instead of just insulting me. Honestly, I've had a fairly rough day, and your answer has made me a bit more upset than perhaps I should be. At least GPT doesn't act like a jerk when I ask it a stupid question.

I think the complaint most folks have for people posting ChatGPT responses is that it adds nothing 'human' to the conversation.

It's sort of like copy and pasting a wikipedia article into a comment, which in itself isn't necessarily wrong. The 'wikipedia' comment however does comes off as an impersonal PSA that also happens to be citing a newfangled encyclopedia that makes an easy target for ire.

If you care to accommodate those who seemingly don't care to accommodate you, try phrasing your messages connect it in some way to the conversation with a couple of sentences about how that information changed your perspective or helped you understand something. That way, rather than making an announcement containing the definition of a word or concept, you're participating in the discourse as an active participant.

Post reply on HN