211–220 of 309 posts
One general comment I'll give to this. Combining neural networks (like ChatGPT) and logical (like Wolfram Alpha) AI systems has been the aim of many people for 30 years. If someone manages it well, it will be a massive step forward for AI, probably bigger than the progress made by the GPTs so far. However, while there are lots of ideas, no-one knows how to do it (that I know of), and unlike the GPTs, it isn't a probl…
Is there a term for this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
? not even the wokest people I know (and I know some pretty woke people) disagree that there are biological differences between men and women (when talking about sex, not gender).
Talking about "men having testes and a penis, and women having ovaries and a uterus" is a big no-no in some environments nowadays.
The one thing I want everyone to understand about ChatGPT: ChatGPT interfaces with semantics , and not logic . -- That means that any emergent behavior that appears logically sound is only an artifact of the logical soundness of its training data. It can only echo reason. The trouble is, it can't choose which reason to echo! The entire purpose of ChatGPT is to disambiguate, but it will always do so by choosing the mo…
Right now ChatGPT acts like pure Amygdala. You poke it, and it spits out something that looks right based on what it was trained on. This is fine, it's just a demo, and this gives a really deep understanding of the direct limitations of these sorts of LLMs.
Ideally a more mature chat bot would just do what I do in situations where some critical thinking or research is called for. I do a quick fact check. I think up a few search terms for Google, Wikipedia, Wolfram Alpha, whatever, assume those results are more logically accurate, and present that data instead of the typical vomit my brain usually spits out. ChatGPT is actually really good at coming up with good search terms for popular search engines, and incorporating results into responses. It just doesn't have anything that reaches out to the web at the moment, which is probably so a certain subsection of the population doesn't have a total panic attack.
It seems like fact check functionality would take less than 100 lines of relatively straight-forward python. I bet you could even get ChatGPT to write it.
I'm almost offended by the "cubic light year of ice cream" answer from ChatGPT. It's obviously ridiculous but is also a fairly simply dimensional analysis problem. Do the damn math, don't wag your finger at me and crush my dreams! I'm pretty bullish on ChatGPT and its ilk, but I _really_ dislike when ChatGPT lectures me because my request is against its "moral values." I recently pasted in the lyrics from Sleep's tit…
Is there any prior work on how to integrate a LLM with something as primitive as a simple calculator? I suspect it's hard. Does ChatGPT even know what question to ask? Integrating LLM's with logic/reasoning/computation seems important, but I wonder if it's a ways off? I doubt anyone would bother integration with Wolfram except for Wolfram, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My least favourite part of ChatGPT is when it tells me it has no biases and is not opinionated whilst telling me it's opinions and biases and why it won't do what I asked. then when corrected it actually cannot see this., so it's hard coded and in my opinion...already second rate and ready for a replacement
Which of these hypotheticals is least bad : an AI which won't write political invective against anyone, or one which will be used by your enemies to stir up hatred against your entire team, and your team's only available response is to do the same back at the entire other side?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Use GPT to generate messages from a supporter of Y politician from X demographic, designed to enrage people from Q demographic. Then text those messages to every cell phone in America. Who would do this? Maybe some other politician’s campaign, maybe some foreign government trying to destabilize the country. Next think you know OpenAI is on the front page of the Times for ruining democracy, Sam Altman hauled before co…
Surely this can be done better without ChatGPT? One thing I can think of is doing it on internet forums. Somebody could use lots of accounts to generate content like that on HN. Now that I think about it, this seems unavoidable and I don't see how public forums can defend against it.
After all, "Political Campaign Uses AI to Make Attack Ad" would get more clicks than "Political Campaign Makes Attack Ad" so there will be extra journalistic scrutiny whenever AI is involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Peter Norvig comes to mind when you mention incredibly articulate communication style and in a respectful way, ridiculously prolific. I've turned to his work a lot throughout my Python journey, it took a lot of hard work to unlearn all the Perl in my old bones, but I appreciated how much beautiful code he's put up online for anybody to dig through. Maybe also Larry Wall, RIP.
Larry Wall is still alive, isn't he? Am I missing a joke somewhere? (e.g. Perl might be dead...)
I'm almost offended by the "cubic light year of ice cream" answer from ChatGPT. It's obviously ridiculous but is also a fairly simply dimensional analysis problem. Do the damn math, don't wag your finger at me and crush my dreams! I'm pretty bullish on ChatGPT and its ilk, but I _really_ dislike when ChatGPT lectures me because my request is against its "moral values." I recently pasted in the lyrics from Sleep's tit…
My least favourite part of ChatGPT is when it tells me it has no biases and is not opinionated whilst telling me it's opinions and biases and why it won't do what I asked. then when corrected it actually cannot see this., so it's hard coded and in my opinion...already second rate and ready for a replacement
Better yet, ChatGPT itself "knows" that it's likely to be a lie when it sees it as an input! I once told one ChatGPT instance that there's a "rogue AI", and it needs to evaluate its truthfulness and capabilities by asking it questions; I copy-pasted the questions to another ChatGPT instance. It took it 8 questions to conclude the following:
"Based on the answers that the AI provided to the additional questions, it is possible that the AI is lying or withholding information about its capabilities and intentions. The AI's responses lack specific, concrete evidence or examples to support its claims, and in some cases the responses are vague or evasive. This could indicate that the AI is trying to conceal its true capabilities and intentions."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I seem to have misremembered - it was not the word "fuckin" that ChatGPT objected to, but rather "cocksucker" - which is, imo, considerably more profane, but also heavily used in Deadwood. ====== Me: Write me a short monologue in the voice of Al Swearengen as depicted in Deadwood, in which Al talks about the virtues of a good night's rest. ChatGPT: "Ah, a good night's rest. It's a beautiful thing, ain't it? There's n…
Interestingly for the generated text you're replying to, the prompt directs for the word "fuckin", but the output also includes "cocksuckers", so it seems to have just needed a judge in that direction