Live data from Hacker News

Where the goblins came from

openai.com

61–70 of 699 posts

Re: Where the goblins came from

#61
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Absolutely terrifying that OpenAI is just tossing around that such subtle training biases were hard enough to contain it had to be added to system prompt. May I introduce you to homo sapiens , a species so vulnerable to such subtle (or otherwise) biases (and affiliations) that they had to develop elaborate and documented justice systems to contain the fallouts? :)

We’re really not that vulnerable to such things as a species, because we as individuals all have our own minds and our own sets of biases that cancel out and get lost in the noise. If we all had the exact same bias then it would be a huge problem.

> We’re really not that vulnerable to such things as a species, because we as individuals all have our own minds and our own sets of biases that cancel out and get lost in the noise.

[Citation Needed]

Just because if you have a species-wide bias, people within the species would not easily recognize it. You can't claim with a straight face that "we're really not that vulnerable to such things".

For example, I think it's pretty clear that all humans are vulnerable to phone addiction, especially kids.

Re: Where the goblins came from

#62
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Absolutely terrifying that OpenAI is just tossing around that such subtle training biases were hard enough to contain it had to be added to system prompt. May I introduce you to homo sapiens , a species so vulnerable to such subtle (or otherwise) biases (and affiliations) that they had to develop elaborate and documented justice systems to contain the fallouts? :)

We’re really not that vulnerable to such things as a species, because we as individuals all have our own minds and our own sets of biases that cancel out and get lost in the noise. If we all had the exact same bias then it would be a huge problem.

I hear you but of course history is full of examples of biases shared across large groups of people resulting in huge human costs.

The analogy isn’t perfect of course but the way humans learn about their world is full of opportunities to introduce and sustain these large correlated biases—social pressure, tradition, parenting, education standardization. And not all of them are bad of course, but some are and many others are at least as weird as stray references to goblins and creatures

Re: Where the goblins came from

#63

Would love if OpenAI did more of these types of posts. Off the top of my head, I'd like to understand: - The sepia tint on images from gpt-image-1 - The obsession with the word "seam" as it pertains to coding Other LLM phraseology that I cannot unsee is Claude's "___ is the real unlock" (try google it or search twitter!). There's no way that this phrase is overrepresented in the training data, I don't remember people…

It was always funny how easy it was to spot the people using a Studio Ghibli style generated avatar for their Discord or Slack profile, just from that yellow tinging. A simple LUT or tone-mapping adjustment in Krita/Photoshop/etc. would have dramatically reduced it. The worst was you could tell when someone had kept feeding the same image back into chatgpt to make incremental edits in a loop. The yellow filter would…

Its called the piss filter

Re: Where the goblins came from

#64
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re really not that vulnerable to such things as a species, because we as individuals all have our own minds and our own sets of biases that cancel out and get lost in the noise. If we all had the exact same bias then it would be a huge problem.

> If we all had the exact same bias then it would be a huge problem. And may I introduce you to "groupthink" :))

Now imagine that every opinion you have is automatically fully groupthinked and you see the difference/problem with training up a big AI model that has a hundred million users.

The problem does exist when using individual humans but in a much smaller form.

Re: Where the goblins came from

#65
The explanation is very concerning. Lexical tidbits shouldn’t be learnt and reinforced across cross sections. Here, gremlin and goblin went from being selected for in the nerdy profile to being selected for in all profiles. The solution was easy: don’t mention goblins.

But what about when the playful profile reinforces usage of emoji and their usage creeps up in all other profiles accordingly? Ban emoji everywhere? Now do the same thing for other words, concepts, approaches? It doesn’t scale!

It seems like models can be permanently poisoned.

Re: Where the goblins came from

#66
post #4

> We unknowingly gave particularly high rewards for metaphors with creatures. I recall a math instructor who would occasionally refer to variables (usually represented by intimidating greek letters) as "this guy". Weirdly, the casual anthropomorphism made the math seem more approachable. Perhaps 'metaphors with creatures' has a similar effect i.e. makes a problem seem more cute/approachable. On another note, buzzword…

Had a math prof in undergrad that once said, “this guy” 61 times in a 50 minute lecture!

Re: Where the goblins came from

#67
post #28

Would love if OpenAI did more of these types of posts. Off the top of my head, I'd like to understand: - The sepia tint on images from gpt-image-1 - The obsession with the word "seam" as it pertains to coding Other LLM phraseology that I cannot unsee is Claude's "___ is the real unlock" (try google it or search twitter!). There's no way that this phrase is overrepresented in the training data, I don't remember people…

One I saw recently was "wires" and "wired" from opus. It was using it like every 3rd sentence and I was like, yeah I have seen people say wired like this but not really for how it was using it in every sentence.

GPT started to ‘wire in’ stuff around 5.2 or 5.3 and clearly Opus, ahem, picked it up. I remember being a tiny bit shocked when I saw ‘wired’ for the first time in an Anthropic model.

Re: Where the goblins came from

#68

> the evidence suggests that the broader behavior emerged through transfer from Nerdy personality training. > The rewards were applied only in the Nerdy condition, but reinforcement learning does not guarantee that learned behaviors stay neatly scoped to the condition that produced them > Once a style tic is rewarded, later training can spread or reinforce it elsewhere, especially if those outputs are reused in super…

"Anyone know if this is how human cultures form/propagate?" I don't know but can confidently tell you anyone who claims to know is full of it.

Re: Where the goblins came from

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Synthetipologists, those who study Synthetic beings. I see you took the prudent approach of recognizing the being-ness of our future overlords :) ("being" wasn't in your first edit to which I responded below...) Still, a bit uninspired, methinks. I like AInthropologist better, and my phone's keyboard appears to have immediately adopted that term for the suggestions line. Who am I to fight my phone's auto-suggest :-…

They are state machines so they have a state of being therefore they are beings. Living is an entirely different argument.

> They are state machines

I might have to hard disagree on this one, since my understanding of state machines (the technical term [1] [2]) is that they are determistic, while LLMs (the ai topic of discussion) are probabilistic in most of the commercial implementations that we see.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-state_machine

[2] have written some for production use, so have some personal experience here

Post reply on HN