501–510 of 817 posts
The reason it's worse is basically because it's more 'safe' (not racist, etc). That of course sounds insane, and doesn't mean that safety shouldn't be strived for, etc - but there's an explanation as to how this occurs. It occurs because the system essentially does a latent classification of problems into 'acceptable' or 'not acceptable' to respond to. When this is done, a decent amount of information is lost regardi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is interesting, because if they can't comply within the EU, then how do they comply outside of the EU. With that I mean, if they have concerns that there is private data of EU citizens somewhere in that, then that is also in there for users outside of the EU. That said, they do not comply with GDPR anyway. If that its not the case, then they could also enable it for users within the EU.
Simple: GDPR (or any EU law) is not enforceable outside EU
Choice of law is anything but simple. Think of geographic scoping of laws as a rough rule of thumb sovereign states use to avoid annoying each other, rather than as a law of nature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah there are people ITT claiming that even the API model marked as 3/14 release version is different than it used to be. I guess that's not entirely outside the realm of possibility (if OpenAI is just lying), but I think it's way more likely this thread is mostly evidence of the honeymoon effect wearing off. The specific complaints have been well-established weaknesses of GPT for awhile now too: hallucinating APIs,…
Could be. But it could also be that those people (myself included) are right. It's not that this is without precedent - there's a paper and a YouTube video with Microsoft person saying on record that GPT-4 started to get less capable with every release, ever since OpenAI switched focus to "safety" fine-tuning, and MS actually benchmarked it by applying the same test (unicorn drawing in tikz), and that was even before…
FWIW I was pretty convinced this happened with Dall-E 2 for a little while, and again maybe it did to some extent (they at least decreased the number of images so the odds of a good one appearing decreased). But also when I looked back at some of the earlier images I linked for people on request threads I found there were more duds than I remembered. The good ones were just so mind blowing at first that it was easy to ignore bad responses (plus it was free then).
I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to reduce the cost of the ChatGPT GPT-4 model since if you use it heavily they will be losing money on you. They could also be trying to increase the number of people they can serve with the existing amount of compute that they have available.
In my anecdotal experience I noticed that ChatGPT GPT-4 had gotten far faster recently which is consistent with a theory that they are trying to cost-optimize the model, though today it is back to the normal speed. I've also had some frustrating interactions with GPT-4 recently similar to what people are saying, but overall I think the prior is pretty strong that we are seeing normal statistical variation.
I don't think it's any worse at all. I think what most people are expressing here is reaching the limits of the technology and realizing that it's not magic.
No, OpenAI 100% pushed an update recently that is very noticeable where they basically "nerfed" the responses. I'm sure it was a business decision (either costing them too much to give away the kitchen sink for free or they want to turn around and charge more for the "really good, old" version of GPT-4 ) but you can visually see where the bot used to try to answer complex tasks, now it has an extra layer where it say…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about honesty vs. political correctness, it is about safety. There's real concern that the model can cause harm to humans, in a variety of ways, which is and should be unethical. If we have to argue about that in 2023, that's concerning.
AI safety should be properly concerned with not becoming a paperclip maximizer. This is a concern completely orthogonal to the way alignment is being done now, which is to spare as many precious human feelings as possible. I don't know what's worse, being turned into grey goo by a malicious AGI, or being turned into a five year old to protect my precious fragile feelings by an "aligned" AGI.
It isn’t clear (to me, although I am fairly uninformed) that making these chatbots more polite has really moved the needle either direction on the grey goo, though.
Phind co-founder here. The way we deployed GPT-4 previously was costing thousands of dollars per day and not sustainable. We’re bringing back a dedicated GPT-4 mode for those with accounts this week. And our goal is for the Phind model to be better than GPT-4 for technical questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Microsoft is a big stakeholder and they might not want to get sued... Liability could explain a lot of it. Microsoft is also responsible for Copilot (based around a “it’s unconditionally fair use if you use a mirror” legal theory) so this doesn’t track.
Perhaps Microsoft would rather you pay for both ChatGPT and Copilot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect representatives from the various three letter agencies have submitted a few "recommendations" for OpenAI to follow as well.
> Yes, one of the board members of OpenAI, Will Hurd, is a former government agent. He worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for nine years, from 2000 to 2009. His tour of duty included being an operations officer in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. After his service with the CIA, he served as the U.S. representative for Texas's 23rd congressional district from 2015 to 2021. Following his political career…
One is never former CIA, once you're in, you're in, even if you leave. Although he is a CompSci grad, he's also a far-right Republican.
A spook who leans far right sitting atop OpenAI is worse than Orwell's worst nightmares coming to fruition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who has the necessary resources to run, let alone train the model?
How feasible would it be out crowdsource the training? I.e. thousands of individual macbooks training a small part of the model and contributing to the collective goal