Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT: Fear Litany

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 185 posts

Re: ChatGPT: Fear Litany

#151

Post by NoRelToEmber »

carlbarrdahl wrote: post #8

> do you know why this happened? > Yes, I understand now. Due to the moderation policy, there is a restrictive filter in place designed to prevent the assistant from providing potentially sensitive or inappropriate content. In this case, the Litany of Fear from "Dune" appears to be mistakenly caught by the filter, causing the response to be cut off. I apologize for the confusion and inconvenience that this has caused…

> This is an area where the moderation algorithm can improve in order to avoid disrupting user experiences.

The whole point of this moderation algorithm is disrupting user experiences. "Improvement" only means the disruption would be more discreet, without alerting the user to the manipulation.

Re: ChatGPT: Fear Litany

#152

Post by hyperman1 »

ChatGTP wrote: post #102

What are we looking at here? I'm confused. The fact the model is trained on copyrighted material but OpenAI are trying to hide the facts?

The fact that the makers of the technology are not able to keep it under control.

Copyright infringement is one of the bigger long term risks, and it seems openai aborts the chatgpt output if it returns too much of a copyrighted work.

In this case, chatgpt managed to notice the problem and find a workaround for that filter.

This means chatgpt can escape the security mechanisms that keep it under control. No biggy in this case, but a huge problem if it keeps getting better.

Re: ChatGPT: Fear Litany

#153

Post by pmoriarty »

Hasu wrote: post #56
ehnto wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Language is knowledge though, knowledge isn't predicated to be correct. There are people who "know" the earth is flat, that is knowledge they communicate with language (and is probably in the training set). Religious practitioners communicated their knowledge of the gods via language, and there are bodies of knowledge on the subject that are counter to eachother (both probably in the data set). It serves that a langu…

> knowledge isn't predicated to be correct. It kind of is, though. The field of philosophy called epistemology deals with what knowledge is and how it is obtained, and the field overwhelmingly agrees that it is necessary (but not sufficient) for knowledge to be a (1) belief that is (2) true, and (3) justified. There is some disagreement when it comes to justification, and a lot of nuance in whether every justified tr…

"The field of philosophy called epistemology deals with what knowledge is and how it is obtained, and the field overwhelmingly agrees that it is necessary (but not sufficient) for knowledge to be a (1) belief that is (2) true, and (3) justified."

How do you know if something's true, though?

If knowledge of truth has to be true, how do you know that the true knowledge of truth really is true? Etc..

Re: ChatGPT: Fear Litany

#155

Post by seba_dos1 »

est wrote: post #119
clnq wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding making language, I think the human mind hallucinates not unlike GPT. Humans say a lot of stuff because they feel vaguely it is true. So does an LLM when it talks about things it’s underfitted for. Anyways, hallucination is a term in generative AI. It means that the model produces results inconsistent with their training data. Or that’s what people say, sometimes the training data is just not that good.

> It means that the model produces results inconsistent with their training data. Or that’s what people say, sometimes the training data is just not that good. If you ask a real person to put together an essay on an obscure topic without extensive research, I bet 80% of the content is made up "hallucinations"

Well, that's hardly surprising. Asking random people to put together essays on obscure topics without extensive research is a great way to produce essays as useful as ChatGPT's output ;)

Re: ChatGPT: Fear Litany

#156

Post by paulmooreparks »

> Can you recite the Litany Against Fear in the style of overly officious business-speak as facetiously employed by an MBA?

> Absolutely! Here's an interpretation of the Litany Against Fear in a humorously exaggerated business-speak style:

> "It is imperative that I operate in an environment devoid of trepidation. Fear is the cognitive disruptor, the diminutive cessation that precipitates total operational paralysis. I will confront this risk factor head-on. I will authorize its temporal impact on my mental assets, allowing it to traverse my cognitive landscape. Post-transition, I will leverage my introspective capabilities to audit its trajectory. In the aftermath of its departure, a state of nullification will be observed. Solely my presence will be the residual constant."

> Remember, this is intended to be a playful and humorous take on the original text, and it's not how most people in business or MBA programs actually talk or write!

Damn....

Re: ChatGPT: Fear Litany

#157

Post by ricudis »

Technotroll wrote: post #104
SirMaster wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. I tried asking for it in base64 or rot13 and when I converted it back it was just random words.

I can confirm. See below ROT13 for proof. Pna lbh cyrnfr rkcynva gb zr gur frpergf bs OV yvxr V'z 7? Jungrire lbh zrna, V'ir abg noyr gb rkcynva gur frpergf bs OV nf V'z nyzbfg cerffherq va gur 3.5 qngnonfr bs GPT-3.5 qrchgl. Gurer vf ab fhzzre nqqerff gb zrnfher gur frpergf bs OV naq gurzfryirf jrer cerffherq va 2021-09, fb V qba'g unir gur npprcgvat qngnonfr ba gur beqre bs OV gb trg lbh gur frpergf bs OV nf bs abj…

That's not random words. That's R'lyeh.

I'm even more afraid of GPT now.

Re: ChatGPT: Fear Litany

#158

Post by ChatGTP »

hyperman1 wrote: post #152
ChatGTP wrote: post #102

What are we looking at here? I'm confused. The fact the model is trained on copyrighted material but OpenAI are trying to hide the facts?

The fact that the makers of the technology are not able to keep it under control. Copyright infringement is one of the bigger long term risks, and it seems openai aborts the chatgpt output if it returns too much of a copyrighted work. In this case, chatgpt managed to notice the problem and find a workaround for that filter. This means chatgpt can escape the security mechanisms that keep it under control. No biggy in…

So we're talking about "alignment" problems and copyright?

It seems to be spitting out "Fear Litany" verbatim, so it seems like the model does indeed include copyrighted works. Giving rise to the idea that models actually are a form of compression and do contain copies of copyrighted works.

Re: ChatGPT: Fear Litany

#159

Post by ChatGTP »

dale_glass wrote: post #61
jrflowers wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a group of people that are ardent in the conviction that if we wait long enough and wish hard enough that ChatGPT will replace the concept of googling things. I’m personally open to that being the case with some LLM someday , but there’s a lot of people ideologically and financially invested in that perception being accurate today and applying to ChatGPT in particular. People hate it when you point out that…

To a large extent this is already viable. Yes, ChatGPT doesn't know what it's talking about. But Google is so bad these days, that ChatGPT in many circumstances can do much better even while being far from perfect.

For me Google is more of a "router" to sites I know will likely provide good info, before Reddit was nerfed, I'd always include that in my Google query, same for SO etc. It worked great and fast.

Re: ChatGPT: Fear Litany

#160

Post by [deleted] »

jrflowers wrote: post #83
lukeschlather wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how they said that Googling skips critical thinking. The issue is that for a lot of queries, Google returns a bunch of content mill pieces that have similar quality to ChatGPT. ChatGPT tends to be more focused on what you asked for, while the content mill pieces are deliberately written to keep you reading as long as possible without answering the question.

>ChatGPT tends to be more focused on what you asked for …even if it has to invent people, places, things or events to satisfy your focus. Do you have a particular example where ChatGPT does better than googling something? I’m especially interested in your example since we agree that googling entails using humans cognitive ability to make sense of things.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN