Live data from Hacker News

LaMDA is not sentient

garymarcus.substack.com

151–160 of 694 posts

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#151

This LaMDA story reminds me of another article I found last year about a man who fed his deceased girlfriend's chats to GPT3 [1] and believed the system was giving the answers she would have. Both articles rely on the operators taking the smallest amount of evidence and ignoring everything else, which I guess is what this article calls "the gullibility gap" (awful name). Getting your audience to do the heavy lifting…

Sadly, this is the very inspiration of Replika. https://replika.com/about/story How this company has remained an ongoing concern for 5 or 6 years, I’ll never understand.

People know you can't pay a human to love you, but it's in principle possible to make an AI that loves you, assuming a human level AI exists.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#152
post #67

I think the real ethical concern here should be that people can be idly fooled into thinking good chat bots are sentient. Like this guy isn't the only person in the world who would fall for LaMDA's parlor tricks. He's just the one who got to spend hours talking to it every day. If you set up every American with a copy, I bet a non-trivial portion of society would come to the same conclusion. People are naturally pred…

That reminds me of the mechanicus in warhammer 40k. They perform ancient rites to please the machine spirits before using a machine.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#153
post #137
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, he was a software engineer

Really? I read the role was “AI Ethicists”… not something FizzBuzz worthy I presume. But I might be wrong on all counts :)

He has a PhD in computer science from ULL and worked as a senior engineer at google. AI ethics was his 20% project; and he used it to publicly make an idiot of himself.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re a fabric of stitched together organic molecules that selects the best response to electromagnetic and auditory stimulus.

> You’re a fabric of stitched together organic molecules that selects the best response to electromagnetic and auditory stimulus. That's true in some sense, but definitely not if you apply it exclusively to language. The "response" you select is a step in a plan to achieve a goal. Part of that plan may be to utter a sentence, or it may be to stop, duck and roll. If the plan is to utter a sentence, the way you generat…

> The "response" you select is a step in a plan to achieve a goal.

Is it? Or are you just a bird trying to explain how flying works by dropping poop on my head?

> If the plan is to utter a sentence, the way you generate the sentence is NOT to emit the most likely token to fit all of the speech input you ever heard before.

This is completely incoherent to me.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#155
post #72

What makes everyone in this thread so confident that it isn't sentient?

Basic understanding of how the model works.

As said elsewhere, the model doesn't have memory, it doesn't learn, and doesn't have goals. If you were allowed to play with it, you could quickly observe this for yourself with a bit of adversarial play - ask it about the time it fought Genghis Khan, ask it if it wants you to give it a glass of water, etc - you will quickly realize the illusion behind the system. Tell it whatever facts you want, be amazed how well it might recall them, and then start a new conversation and notice that it has entirely forgotten all of them (again, it has no memory, and it doesn't learn anything).

From first principles, we know how the LM works: it has been trained to predict what is the most likely next token in a series of tokens. It has been trained to do this on a gigantic corpus, and is now pretty good at it. You then present it with a prompt, and it starts predicting the most likely token that comes after that prompt, and it keeps predicting for a while until the most likely "token" is to stop. Note that these tokens aren't even words - they are typically letters, or short combinations of letters. To give the illusion of a coherent conversation and memory, the prediction function is applied to the entire conversation so far, not just to the latest prompt.

There is more sophistication to avoid various undesirable behaviors, especially in LaMDA (e.g. the model is also trained to evaluate the "safety" of various possible answers, so it doesn't generate a sentence that insults you or discriminates against you or induces you to do something dangerous etc), but this is the gist of how it works.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I ask you what you ate for breakfast, I would expect you to answer with a truthful answer, if I asked you whether you enjoyed it and whether it improved your mood, again I would expect you to answer the question based on your own personal experience. GPT-3 obviously does not do this - it asks 'if the answer to the question was coming from text in the training data, what is a likely response'. Its answer is meaning…

What is the difference between 'training data' and 'memory' ?

One way to look at it: Everything you have ever seen, heard or otherwise perceived is your brain's "training data" to date.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#157
This might be the first, but probably not the last time someone decides to take actions that lead to them losing their job in an effort to defend an AI. We're in a new era.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#158
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I ask you what you ate for breakfast, I would expect you to answer with a truthful answer, if I asked you whether you enjoyed it and whether it improved your mood, again I would expect you to answer the question based on your own personal experience. GPT-3 obviously does not do this - it asks 'if the answer to the question was coming from text in the training data, what is a likely response'. Its answer is meaning…

We are only not executing the same task because GPT-3 has no motivation to do anything else than memory recall. And precisely because it does so it does give you real data about the world. I think you maybe misunderstood what GPT-3 can do, maybe you haven't played with it yourself. It not only bases the answer on information in its training set, but also on information in the question. So if you in your question give…

> it will respond with its best interpretation of the information it is given, just like a human would

The reason I can respond to this reply is not because I have read and memorised reams of text of people talking about AI and am simply regurgitating it mindlessly. I am able to do it because I can consider the points you are making, and what their actual 'meaning' is, try to come up with my own meaningful response and try to verbalise it back to you. There is a point where I am not just doing statistical language modelling. If you think that is wrong, and that what we are doing is closer to GPT-3, then could you explain why you think that?

I am an AI researcher, and have spent plenty of time playing with GPT-3 btw.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#159
post #129
post #11

It sounds like despite all the stories about how hard it is to get through many rounds of difficult interviews at Google, they managed to hire someone who believed LaMDA is a 7 or 8 year old child. "Mr. Lemoine, a military veteran who has described himself as a priest, an ex-convict and an A.I. researcher, told Google executives as senior as Kent Walker, the president of global affairs, that he believed LaMDA was a c…

Everyone is giving Lemoine far too much credit. He's not an idiot; he's a charlatan. He's acting in bad faith and it should be extremely obvious to anyone who's tried to have a conversation with a chat bot before. Picture yourself sitting at a desk, typing messages into a program you wrote. You hit enter, you get a response. Then what? Silence. It waits idly for more input from you, the user. For all its talk of lone…

In fairness, we only run the AI in response to further input, so it's not even really powered on while waiting for the rest of a conversation. It would only be able to be lonely (if that were possible) while thinking about its response to further inputs.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#160
post #25

I agree with the take that LaMDA is not sentient (not even close). But I think the excessive smack-down of excitement is a little patronizing of the public. Even if they don't know what to do with them, big language models now have internal states that correspond to high level human abstractions like "life" or "love" or "master plan". To be able to create a master plan, you must first be able to represent the concept…

I know this isn't exactly what you said, but it's worth reiterating that the language models have no abstract or conceptual understanding. What they have, broadly speaking, is a (very large) system of Markovian connections between, say, the tokens for the word "life", and all the other tokens from works that they've been trained on about "life". This is why, for example, when you include author notes in a GPT-3 promp…

You yourself have a series of markovian connections between tokens. The only difference is that your tokens are bound across modalities and you use them for things, so you consider them to have meaning instead of just being high dimensional vectors that relate to other vectors in various ways.
Post reply on HN