Medical chatbot using OpenAI’s GPT-3 told a fake patient to kill themselves

121–122 of 122 posts

Re: Medical chatbot using OpenAI’s GPT-3 told a fake patient to kill themselves

#121

Post by exporectomy » Tue, Mar 02, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

craftinator wrote: post #80

exporectomy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably don't like speaking to robots because they're currently terrible. Fixing that obviously has far more of an upside than just not trying.

Except that I, too, would rather book an appointment with a date picker than talk to anyone, much less a machine programmed to act like a person. It's like in order to make coffee, getting in my car and driving around the block ten times, parking in front of my house and going in to make coffee, vs just MAKING COFFEE, without doing a bunch of time wasting fluff first.

This might be an age thing because I was like that when I was younger. I didn't understand why I had to keep interacting with seemingly pointless humans in service industries everywhere. But now I'm older, I find talking is more comfortable than using a computer. I don't quite know why. Maybe speaking to a human is something we're biologically built for and these other modes of interaction are a little extra taxing on the brain even if they appear simpler. They involve reading and writing which every school kid knows is harder work than talking.

Or maybe it's just that so many computer interactions are actually slow and frustrating. Ever tried ordering at McDonalds using the touch-screen machines? It's aggravatingly tedious and complicated. There's no "take my money and go away" button. You have to navigate your way through a bunch of stupid menus trying to up-sell you, and each one has an unforgivable loading time.

Re: Medical chatbot using OpenAI’s GPT-3 told a fake patient to kill themselves

#122

Post by drdeca » Tue, Mar 02, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

hprotagonist wrote: post #120

drdeca wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "sample their training data"? It gives a probability distribution over possible values for the next token, in a way that was trained to do well on the training data, yes. But, something which gives a uniform distribution over characters, has a nonzero (though of course minuscule and entirely negligible) chance of giving any given sequence of characters, and so if there is any text which would be "…

https://faculty.washington.edu/ebender/papers/Stochastic_Par... > As we discuss in §5, LMs are not performing natural language understanding (NLU), and only have success in tasks that can be approached by manipulating linguis- tic form [14].

This doesn't answer my question. I asked what you mean by "sample their training data", and questioned the meaning of "do anything novel".

The quote you gave doesn't clarify anything? "Some people say that it doesn't perform 'NLU' ." . Ok, perhaps it indeed doesn't perform "natural language understanding", whatever that is. So? How does that say anything about what I said?

Obviously GPT3 isn't a person, or even an agent. The thing it is meant to do is model the distribution of text. Do not pretend that I am pretending otherwise.

Post reply on HN