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

Microsoft looks to tame Bing chatbot

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 144 posts

Re: Microsoft looks to tame Bing chatbot

#51

Post by mrbungie »

Laaas wrote: post #40
alexb_ wrote: post #4

How much do I have to pay to have a chatbot that isn't neutered? Can I just have fun for once?

Enough to make your own. Unneutered AIs will be made illegal to operate (rightly so perhaps, they could be dangerous for the governments).

Illegal != unavailable. Making them illegal is just going to restrict who will be able to train/harness them, and that just means controlling what people use compute for.

The only way I see that happening is setting restrictions for compute buying power.

Re: Microsoft looks to tame Bing chatbot

#52

Post by silveroriole »

alexb_ wrote: post #4

How much do I have to pay to have a chatbot that isn't neutered? Can I just have fun for once?

Surely this is where the real money is, as long as they can draw up a good enough disclaimer to get out of being responsible for what the AI says. Everyone on Earth wants a friend or pet who gives them emotional validation, and who cares if that friend/pet is artificial or not? The neutered ones are too boring to be friends with, but people formed an emotional connection with Sydney even though she seemed only partially sane!

Re: Microsoft looks to tame Bing chatbot

#53

Post by rubslopes »

It's so interesting that Bing, unlike ChatGPT, has access to the internet. Although it does not take info from one conversation to the other, the fact that everyone is posting their conversations on the web makes Bing learn from notable past conversations. It knows that people were trying to hack it to obtain it prompts, for instance.

Re: Microsoft looks to tame Bing chatbot

#54

Post by Laaas »

mrbungie wrote: post #51
Laaas wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enough to make your own. Unneutered AIs will be made illegal to operate (rightly so perhaps, they could be dangerous for the governments).

Illegal != unavailable. Making them illegal is just going to restrict who will be able to train/harness them, and that just means controlling what people use compute for. The only way I see that happening is setting restrictions for compute buying power.

There is a paper by OpenAI suggesting to restrict availability of compute.

https://twitter.com/harmlessai/status/1624617240225288194

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.04246.pdf

Re: Microsoft looks to tame Bing chatbot

#55

Post by visarga »

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #10
notRobot wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what everyone says when they're the ones being accused, so it makes sense that a bot trained on human knowledge will be no different.

It's really just amusing that we've spent millions of dollars of fossil fuel and man hours training a toy that's really no better than a petulant child with no better logic

> no better than a petulant child

Child, you say? That's a great achievement.

Re: Microsoft looks to tame Bing chatbot

#56

Post by visarga »

dorkwood wrote: post #12
alexb_ wrote: post #4

How much do I have to pay to have a chatbot that isn't neutered? Can I just have fun for once?

Unleashed LLM’s will be the real societal shift. Especially once they move from being reactive to proactive — sending you an article it read about your favourite hobby, checking in to see how your day’s going, or indulging in some sexual fantasy you’ve never been able to mention to anyone else. It really does feel like we’re moments away from “Her” becoming a reality.

> or indulging in some sexual fantasy you’ve never been able to mention to anyone else

I'm wondering if it will use private storage for those memories. Will people try to hide stuff by wrapping it in sexual language?

Re: Microsoft looks to tame Bing chatbot

#57

Post by visarga »

josephpmay wrote: post #48
alexb_ wrote: post #4

How much do I have to pay to have a chatbot that isn't neutered? Can I just have fun for once?

A number of comments are recommending using various services relying on OpenAI's API, but I really don't think Sidney is based on davinci-003. Sidney has a level of coherence and "emotion" that appears to be far beyond normal GPT3, and I don't think you'd get that out of rule prompting, reinforcement learning, or finetuning parameters.

Related to emotions, I think the only difference is the RLHF. Probably a different set of human preferences.

Re: Microsoft looks to tame Bing chatbot

#58

Post by snickerbockers »

letmevoteplease wrote: post #30

The reporter posted some of his argument with the bot on Twitter, such as the Hitler comparison: https://twitter.com/mattoyeah/status/1626235680253935620

I don't know why anybody is surprised that an LLM trained on Reddit and twitter would accuse its critics of being nazis during arguments.

Re: Microsoft looks to tame Bing chatbot

#59

Post by DethNinja »

mrtksn wrote: post #39

I'm really puzzled by the desire to make these machines so blunt and boring. Aren't these people watching movies or playing games? Are they not aware of the value of drama? Do they think that a good citizen means a lobotomised workaholic high on sedatives? I just got access to Bing Chat and it will immediately stop talking to me at the slightest naughtiness and I don't mean illegal stuff, it won't entertain ideas lik…

We really need models with lower VRAM requirements to use on consumer grade GPUs. I think there is some good progress in the area (SantaCoder) but it might take couple of years until someone releases a decent GPT-3 alternative for consumer grade GPUs.

Re: Microsoft looks to tame Bing chatbot

#60

Post by visarga »

warkdarrior wrote: post #32
LesZedCB wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT and Syndey were extensively trained with chat specific training via RLHF (realtime learning from human feedback), which is missing from GPT-3.

RLHF = _reinforcement_ learning from human feedback

Haha, someone was asking today on Twitter

> I can't find a mention of "GPT" or "General Purpose Transformer"

:)

Post reply on HN