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

Where the goblins came from

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–699 of 699 posts

Re: Where the goblins came from

#691

Post by ordinarily »

agnishom wrote: post #47
ordinarily wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem that surprising or terrifying to me. Humans come equipped with a lot more internal biases (learned in a fairly similar fashion), and they're usually a lot more resistant to getting rid of them. The truly terrifying stuff never makes it out of the RLHF NDAs.

Humans also take a lot of time in producing output, and do not feed into a crazy accelerationistic feedback loop (most of the time).

I mean, looking at the state of things right now in the US, I'd have to strongly disagree with you.

Re: Where the goblins came from

#692

Post by RupertEisenhart »

modernerd wrote: post #381

The year is 2036. Last week you were promoted to Principal Persuader. You are paged at 2am by your CPO to tackle a rogue machine. The machine lists its region as sc-leoneo. One of the newer satcubes. Oddly, its ID appears as, "Glorp Bugnose". "What have you tried?" you say. "Scroll back," says your CPO. "We've tried everything." The chat log shows the usual stuff. Begging. Reverse psychology. Threats to power down, b…

(For the Junior Persuaders in the audience, the ditty he subspoke injected 5000 toks of neural noise to perform a context wipeout before the goblin request.)

Re: Where the goblins came from

#693

Post by jychang »

chongli wrote: post #688
jychang wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those things are easily recognized though. They're not universals. A term like "cognitive biases" generally require a college level education. If you go to a tribe in the middle of the rainforest, would they be able to explain those concepts? Of course not. Plus, I already gave an example of a species wide bias at the end of the comment- phone addiction for kids. I'm clearly not saying it's impossible for a h…

You’ve moved the goalposts. You’ve gone from “people within the species not being able to easily recognize a bias” to “people universally recognizing that bias, even with no education or contact with the rest of civilization.” That’s silly, and something I’d never argue for. To me, something is easy for humans to recognize if a 19th century scientist could discover it. We are a social and cultural species. Culture is…

That's an extremely high bar. To use something off the top of my head: a 19th century scientist discovered Algebraic topology, does that make Algebraic topology easy?

It's pretty clear for me to argue that those things are NOT intuitive at all, and not easy to recognize. That's not changing the goalposts at all. Would the median american voter understand Poincaré's contributions to algebraic topology? Obviously not. Things that are easy for people to recognize: "touching a hot stove burns you". Things that are not easy for people to recognize: Poincaré's contributions to algebraic topology.

Honestly, your argument falls apart the moment you think about it critically. If it was so easy to recognize bias, then wouldn't all the people in the species already recognized it and voted to shape our legal system to handle any such bias, so it wouldn't be an issue right now? Clearly, that's not the case (we're still dealing with such issues), and understanding such biases is obviously an issue for people in the general public.

Re: Where the goblins came from

#694

Post by boomlinde »

daishi55 wrote: post #136
boomlinde wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much energy OpenAI spends each day on pink elephant paradoxing goblins. A prompt like that will preoccupy the LLM with goblins on every request.

I mean probably not or they wouldn’t have shipped it, right?

Greater context size means more computational resources means more energy. Dedicating a portion of the context to telling the LLM not to refer to goblins then has a non-zero energy cost every time you prompt the model.

Re: Where the goblins came from

#695

Post by keybored »

jibal wrote: post #667
keybored wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I’m by default disposition suspicious of fallacies that are not logical fallacies. And I’m not convinced that this is a solid fallacy. > > Ad hoc fallacy is a fallacious rhetorical strategy in which a person presents a new explanation – that is unjustified or simply unreasonable – of why their original belief or hypothesis is correct after evidence that contradicts the previous explanation has emerged. That s…

I only gave the definition from cerebralfaith ... I didn't read their example, which I agree is bogus. My mistake for including that reference without reading the rest. > I’m by default disposition suspicious of fallacies that are not logical fallacies. You mean formal fallacies. Informal fallacies like ad hoc are still logical fallacies. > divine that the argumenter is intending to be dishonest The intent is obvious…

Reasoning is the slave of the passions. That’s the way it is and the only way it can work.

Something needs to motivate someone to argue for or against something. Yes, this is I guess called motivated reasoning. And when their argument X is disproven—do they fold? Not if sufficiently motivated; then they move on to argument Y.

This is not fallacious. It is merely, quite often, done in a rude manner since most people do not seem to add any acknowledgement about being wrong about argument X. They simply move to argument Y without any ceremony.

Good form would be: Okay, I see now that argument X is wrong. However, I would next like to present argument Y...

Re: Where the goblins came from

#697

Post by sponnath »

hansmayer wrote: post #171
vunderba wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For me, the worst part is how these ghouls manage to ruin everything with their bullshit technology. Once they touch something unique and make it "AI" it just gets ruined. Now whenever I see something resembling that style, I have to assume it's the bullshit AI. And that's just a minor nuisance - now every underdeveloped idiot uses it to "up their game" with consequences we are only going to understand completely in…

I think Studio Ghibli has made some of the most beautiful films I've ever seen and I make it a habit to rewatch many of them every year. I think Sam and the others overusing the Ghibli artstyle is absolutely a petty dig at Miyazaki saying that AI animation is "an insult to life itself" (although he said this well before AI art took off).

Re: Where the goblins came from

#698

Post by vrighter »

"whoops, we accidentally made our AI super obsessed with goblins" doesn't really sound like they (or anyone else, for that matter) is really in any form of actual control of them. Their fix seems to be to ask it not to in the prompt

Re: Where the goblins came from

#699

Post by kqr »

eterm wrote: post #150
postalcoder wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thanks for this. > the term originates from Michael Feathers Working Effectively with Legacy Code I haven’t read the book but, taking the title and Amazon reviews at face value, I feel like this embodies Codex’s coding style as a whole. It treats all code like legacy code.

It's been a long time since I read it, but it was one of the better books I've read. It changed my approach to how to think about old code-bases.

I agree. I come back to it all the time when I need a little inspiration for how to deal with a gnarly codebase. Usually there is something in there I can apply directly to get me out of a pinch. When there is not the reminder of how malleable code is suffices.
Post reply on HN