I experienced this personally and it kinda freaked me out. Here is the chat in question, it occurs about halfway through (look for ChatGPT using emojis) https://chat.openai.com/share/74bd7c02-79b5-4c99-a3a5-97b83f... EDIT: Note that my personal instructions tell ChatGPT to refer to itself as Chaz in the third person. I find this fun. EDIT2: Here is a snippet of the conversation on pastebin: https://pastebin.com/AXzd6…
I thought I was the only one! I have been using “ChadGPT” for months (he’s a douche-y frat bro who goes off on tangents about “how lit that party was”). His best friend and fellow frat bro is Dale, a photography major.
I am used to postmortems posted to here being a rare chance for us to take a peek behind the curtain and get a glimpse into things like architecture, monitoring systems, disaster recovery processes, "blameless culture", etc for large software service companies. In contrast, I feel like like the greatest insight that could be gleaned from this post is that OpenAI uses GPU's.
I am used to postmortems posted to here being a rare chance for us to take a peek behind the curtain and get a glimpse into things like architecture, monitoring systems, disaster recovery processes, "blameless culture", etc for large software service companies. In contrast, I feel like like the greatest insight that could be gleaned from this post is that OpenAI uses GPU's.
It sounds like something went sideways with the embedding mapping. Either some kind of quantization, different rounding, or maybe just an older embedding.
This explanation feels unsatisfying. It's so high-level that it's mostly void of any actual information. What was the wrong assumption that the code made that caused this wrong behavior? Why was it not caught in the many layers of automated testing before it made its way to production? What process and procedural changes are being implemented to reduce the risk of this class of bug happening again? Presumably all of…
I hope I'm allowed to share GPT output here because I asked GPT4 to explain OpenAI's postmortem message and this is what it said: > Large language models (LLMs) like GPT operate using statistics to predict the next word in a sentence. Think of it like a highly sophisticated version of your phone's autocorrect that predicts what you're going to type next, but on a much larger scale. > The system represents words as nu…
Dunno about "allowed", but this post adds no signal and lots of noise to the discussion.
Say what you will about Google, but bugs such as these, released to the public (or their enterprise customers) this debilitating to a core product, are exceedingly rare.
I can think of at least four open consumer bugs in YouTube and Android Auto that have persisted for years.
I experienced this personally and it kinda freaked me out. Here is the chat in question, it occurs about halfway through (look for ChatGPT using emojis) https://chat.openai.com/share/74bd7c02-79b5-4c99-a3a5-97b83f... EDIT: Note that my personal instructions tell ChatGPT to refer to itself as Chaz in the third person. I find this fun. EDIT2: Here is a snippet of the conversation on pastebin: https://pastebin.com/AXzd6…
What's even more uncanny is that it recognizes that it briefly went into a paragraph of rambling nonsense (that was seemingly still following your system prompt!). And almost seems embarrassed about it.
That happened because the last message is after the fix and it received the garbled history as the prompt.
All it's doing is noticing that makes no sense and saying so. How could it not recognize it? The additional message is an entirely new instance not a thing that has memory.
This explanation feels unsatisfying. It's so high-level that it's mostly void of any actual information. What was the wrong assumption that the code made that caused this wrong behavior? Why was it not caught in the many layers of automated testing before it made its way to production? What process and procedural changes are being implemented to reduce the risk of this class of bug happening again? Presumably all of…
I think your questions all grew up in a world where the people operating the thing knew some rationalist who could think deductively about its operation. But neural networks... they're an exercise in empiricism. We only ever understood that it works, never why. It's sort of a miracle that it doesn't produce buggy output all the time. What do you tell people when they want to know why the miracles have stopped? Root c…
I’d genuinely expect the people who built and operate the thing to have a far better write up than what amounted to “it no worked lol”. Sure, NN’s are opaque, but this org paints itself as the herald and shepard of ai and they just produced a write up that’s hardly worthy of a primary-school-child’s account of their recent holiday.
I experienced this personally and it kinda freaked me out. Here is the chat in question, it occurs about halfway through (look for ChatGPT using emojis) https://chat.openai.com/share/74bd7c02-79b5-4c99-a3a5-97b83f... EDIT: Note that my personal instructions tell ChatGPT to refer to itself as Chaz in the third person. I find this fun. EDIT2: Here is a snippet of the conversation on pastebin: https://pastebin.com/AXzd6…
I mean, this is almost poetic: Classic plays, wholly told. Shadow into form, hands as cue. Keep it at the dial, in right on Pitch.