191–200 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about “it cannot tell if you if it made something up / guessed with intuitive levels of confidence”.
People can't do that either. Not accurately (though better than current SOTA LLMs) Look at this. People wish they were as calibrated as the left lol. https://imgur.com/a/3gYel9r
Look at Gemini, it’s their new model, currently in closed beta. Hearsay says that it’s multimodal (can describe images), GPT-4 like param count, and apparently has search built in so no model knowledge cutoff. Basically they realized Bard couldn’t cut it and merged DeepMind into Google Brain, and got the combined team to work on a better LLM using the stuff OpenAI has figured out since Bard was designed. Takes months…
> Look at Gemini, it’s their new model, currently in closed beta. With all the talent, data, and infrastructure that Google has, I believe them. That said, it is almost comical they'd not unleash what they keep saying is the better model. I am sure they have safety reasons and world security concerns given their gargantuan scale, but nothing they couldn't solve, surely? They make more in a week than what OpenAI proba…
Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAi) said that they had GPT-4 model trained around 18 months before they released it. Seems like things like these take a lot of time to test, making sure it's aligned, safe etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They make more in a week than what OpenAI probably makes in a year! This is arguably the problem. OpenAI is loss leading (ChatGPT is free!) with a limited number of users. Scale and maturity work against Google here, because if they were to give an equivalent product to its billions of users, Sundar would have some hard questions to answer at the next quarterly earnings call.
OpenAI is generating lots of revenue: https://fortune.com/2023/08/30/chatgpt-creator-openai-earnin...
ignoramous was right 5 times over!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Millions of people have gotten access to ChatGPT and Bard, not LaMDA. Per other comments in this thread by Googlers, they found it creepy how personable and human LaMDA acted. Again, I'm not saying LaMDA is sentient, just that LaMDA may have been significantly better than Bard at passing for human, and that they fine-tuned Bard to sound more robotic for precisely this reason. > You literally redefined sentience again…
To say he was a Luddite who couldn't wrap his brain around it would be an unfair compliment: it'd imply a certain principledness that he certainly didn't demonstrate with his actions afterwards. This all goes back to my original point: there's handwavy academic ponderance, and there's engaging with the real world. OpenAI showed what happens when you balance the two. LaMDA (and frankly this discussion ) demonstrate wh…
It's frustrating, because I almost feel like I'm on your side. I hated how Google limited LaMDA to a handpicked group of influencers and government officials for their "test kitchen." I loathed how "Open"AI tightly controlled access to DALL-E 2, and how they've kept the architecture of GPT-4 secret. I torrented the original Llama weights, and have been working on open-source AI since. I'm not about to let a handful of CEOs and self-important luminaries gatekeep the technology, strangle the open-source competition and dictate "alignment" on humanity's behalf. Put it all on GitHub and HF.
What I'm saying instead, is that I personally find it neat that we have more or less literally built Searle's Chinese room. Don't you see? It's not that we need to be abstract and philosophical, it's that suddenly a lot of thought experiments are very tangible. And I do wonder if my models might be "feeling" anything when I punish and reward them. That's all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People can't do that either. Not accurately (though better than current SOTA LLMs) Look at this. People wish they were as calibrated as the left lol. https://imgur.com/a/3gYel9r
You cannot tell me if you think you made a guess?
I'm saying we're not great at it. There's research that shows we can't even be trusted to accurately say why we make certain decisions or perform certain actions. It's all post-hoc rationalization. If you make someone believe they made another decision, they'll make something up on the fly to justify it.
When humans say "I've made a guess and this is how likely it is to be true", the graph is closer to the right than the left.
https://www.bi.team/blogs/are-you-well-calibrated-results-fr...
And sometimes we present information that is really a guess as fact.
I just asked it to help me identify an upcoming movie based on storyline from the trailer, genre and release date. It happily found that movie I had been looking for (couldn't remember the title), with a summary of the plotline, director's name. Then I googled it to watch the trailer again. Couldn't find it. But I found a movie from the same director with the same title from 2005. The little bastard had invented a su…
p:Please identify an upcoming movie based on these details: it's a a scifi movie, set to be released in 2023 or 2024, the storylines is a techno futurist thriller in which people have the option to create a backup for when they die, some people are getting shot and when they die their backups are activated
a:One of the sci-fi movies set to be released in 2023 is Revolver. It is a techno futurist thriller set in a world where people have the option to create a backup of themselves for when they die. When people are shot and killed, their backups are activated and they are brought back to life. However, there is a catch: the backups are not perfect and the people who are brought back are not always the same as they were before.
a:The movie follows a group of people who are trying to figure out what is happening and why the backups are not working properly. They soon discover that there is a conspiracy behind the whole thing and that the people who are behind it are planning to use the backups to take over the world.
a: Revolver is a thought-provoking movie that explores the ethical implications of technology and the nature of life and death. It is sure to be one of the most talked-about movies of 2023. photo de profil
(at that point I really believed it) p: that was it, thanks :)
a:You're welcome! I'm glad I could help. I'm excited to see Revolver when it comes out. It sounds like a really interesting and thought-provoking movie. photo de profil
(after a bit of fruitless googling and doubts start to rise) p:who stars in the movie ?
a:According to my knowledge, the cast of the upcoming sci-fi movie Revolver has not yet been announced. However, I can tell you that the movie is being directed by Guy Ritchie, who is known for his films such as Snatch, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, and Sherlock Holmes. Ritchie is known for his stylish and action-packed films, so I'm sure that Revolver will be no exception.
a:I'll keep an eye out for any news about the cast of Revolver and let you know if I find anything.
(more googling) p:are you sure the movie's title is correct ?
a:I apologize for the mistake. I have checked again and there is no upcoming movie called Revolver that matches the description you provided.
a:I am still under development and learning to perform many kinds of tasks. I will try my best to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.
a:Is there anything else I can help you with today?
p:did you invent the storyline in your first answer ?
a:Yes, I invented the storyline in my first answer. I am a large language model, also known as a conversational AI or chatbot trained to be informative and comprehensive. I am trained on a massive amount of text data, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions. For example, I can provide summaries of factual topics or create stories.
a:I apologize for the confusion. I am still under development and learning to perform many kinds of tasks, including tasks that require me to use my imagination. I will try my best to be more accurate in my responses in the future.
I use Bard often to help me with proofreading and writing. Things that used to be a chore are now easy. I've been able to knock out a whitepaper I've been sitting on for months in just a few days. I think asking it for precise answers is the wrong approach. At this point, Bard is a lot more of an artist than a mathematician or scientist. So it's like approaching Van Gogh and asking him to do linear algebra. Bard is r…
Aren't you worried that relying on it so much will eventually result in your natural prose sounding like it was created by an LLM?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot tell me if you think you made a guess?
People don't know when they don't know and often inflate their knowledge unknowingly. I'm not saying we can't do it at all. I'm saying we're not great at it. There's research that shows we can't even be trusted to accurately say why we make certain decisions or perform certain actions. It's all post-hoc rationalization. If you make someone believe they made another decision, they'll make something up on the fly to ju…
This test is explicitly asking people things they don’t know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People don't know when they don't know and often inflate their knowledge unknowingly. I'm not saying we can't do it at all. I'm saying we're not great at it. There's research that shows we can't even be trusted to accurately say why we make certain decisions or perform certain actions. It's all post-hoc rationalization. If you make someone believe they made another decision, they'll make something up on the fly to ju…
You are still talking about a different concept entirely. For example, if I take this test, every single answer I give is a guess. I am 100% certain of this. This test is explicitly asking people things they don’t know.
I am not.
>For example, if I take this test, every single answer I give is a guess.
Just look at the graph man. Many answers are given with 100% confidence (that then turn out to be wrong). If you give a 100% confidence response, you don't think you're guessing.
>I am 100% certain of this.
You are wrong. Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This makes sense. In the "token window" of a human being, the same strategy would also work, e.g., p1: "What do you think of my story? Be honest." p2: "I'd rather not say." p1: "Seriously, tell me what you think, it's fine if you hate it. I need the feedback." When you think about it from that perspective, it's no dumber than people are.
That's what I find so interesting about LLMs. I have yet to see a single criticism of them that doesn't apply to humans. "Well, it's just a stochastic parrot." And most people aren't? "Meh, it just makes stuff up." And people don't do that? "It doesn't know when it's wrong." Most people not only don't know when they're wrong, they don't care . "It sucks at math." Yeah, let's not go there. "It doesn't know anything th…