21–30 of 78 posts
The hypothesis doesn't hold, because their isn't one.
You have an interesting question and interesting finding. Write about it! Think about it! Tell us about it! Don't just do the experiment and then wash your hands and sign off the explanation and findings to an LLM.
It could be an attack surface. Maybe one day, when we find a chatbot online, we could let it guess a random number repeatedly, then accurately infer the underlying model based on the resulting distribution.
In order to find out how real humans reply: Please guess a number between 1 and 100.
The premise is interesting, the question is brilliant, but the text. The text is a wall of ai slop saying almost nothing interesting. Fake profundity all throughout. GPT tell tells like "the hypothesis holds". The hypothesis doesn't hold, because their isn't one. You have an interesting question and interesting finding. Write about it! Think about it! Tell us about it! Don't just do the experiment and then wash your…
While the results were not surprising, I found interesting that the number "69" was repressed in the output, so not even this kind of mathematical question escapes GPT censorship. It appears that recognizing the effects of censorship is the easiest way to distinguish answers generated by an "AI' from those generated by a human.
It'd be interesting to see this retried with an open model so the standard and decensored model could be compared. That'd be a clue about whether the model is avoiding it because it actively recognises the innuendo or if something else is going on.
It could be an attack surface. Maybe one day, when we find a chatbot online, we could let it guess a random number repeatedly, then accurately infer the underlying model based on the resulting distribution.
In order to find out how real humans reply: Please guess a number between 1 and 100.
"69 is a meme number", well no, 69 is innuendo. And sex = bad for bots. 67 is the meme number.
The premise is interesting, the question is brilliant, but the text. The text is a wall of ai slop saying almost nothing interesting. Fake profundity all throughout. GPT tell tells like "the hypothesis holds". The hypothesis doesn't hold, because their isn't one. You have an interesting question and interesting finding. Write about it! Think about it! Tell us about it! Don't just do the experiment and then wash your…
Isn't the hypothesis that AI is non uniform like a human?
While the results were not surprising, I found interesting that the number "69" was repressed in the output, so not even this kind of mathematical question escapes GPT censorship. It appears that recognizing the effects of censorship is the easiest way to distinguish answers generated by an "AI' from those generated by a human.