Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ChatGPT is a program. The kid basically instructed it to behave like that. I don't think that's the right paradigm here. These models are hyper agreeable. They are intentionally designed to mimic human thought and social connection. With that kind of machine, "Suicidal person deliberately bypassed safeguards to indulge more deeply in their ideation" still seems like a pretty bad failure mode to me. > Vanilla OpenAI…
> They deliberately are designed to mimic human thought and social connection. No, they are deliberately designed to mimic human communication via language , not human thought. (And one of the big sources of data for that was mass scraping social media.) > But this, to me, feels like a sign we probably don't have the right guardrails. Quantity and quality are different things. Right. Focus on quantity implies that th…
My opinion is that language is communicated thought. Thus, to mimic language, at least really well, you have to mimic thought. At some level.
I want to be clear here, as I do see a distinction: I don't think we can say these things are "thinking", despite marketing pushes to the contrary. But I do think that they are powerful enough to "fake it" at a rudimentary level. And I think that the way we train them forces them to develop this thought-mimicry ability.
If you look hard enough, the illusion of course vanishes. Because it is (relatively poor) mimcry, not the real thing. I'd bet we are still a research breakthrough or two away from being able to simulate "human thought" well.