71–80 of 126 posts
Are NaturalSpeech or NaturalSpeech 2 from the research open source and/or available for playing with? I see one implementation[1] but it seems to be from a third party (that might be totally fine, but wondering if there's an "official"). [1]: https://github.com/heatz123/naturalspeech
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But those certs can come with reputations attached, and it prevents people from claiming that they're representatives of well known companies.
Well, that would create strong financial incentives to compromise company certificates, which I'm sure would then happen. And you still don't know if your taking to a human or an AI.
You have a link to the paper (makes sense), then a link to a reddit discussion, then a link to this hacker news post.
Not criticizing them for doing this. It just seems a bit unusual to me. I guess they really really want to generate buzz from this, or else they'd simply link the paper and let any discussion follow naturally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We aren't even far off from an LLM being able to infer that the parents are fake on the basis of the dog name. I'm not even gonna touch the chain gun shooting up a parking lot aspect.
Not Far off ? GPT-4 already gets it. Response after pasting in the scene: The T-800 figured out that John's foster parents were dead based on the exchange because when it asked about "Wolfie" (a made-up name for the dog), the T-1000, impersonating Janelle, did not correct the name and instead went along with it, saying "Wolfie's fine." If the real Janelle had been on the phone, she would have corrected the T-800 by s…
> I'm sorry, I cannot generate content that includes violent or harmful actions towards characters, as it goes against OpenAI's content policy. Please provide a new prompt that is respectful and appropriate.
As to your edit, I think the sentence structure and terminology is still too similar, as to obviously be a recreation of this scene. AI doesn't "know" anything. It's pattern matching. I wanted to try something more akin to this:
SCENE:
Joseph to Allie: "Where did you grow up?"
Allie: "New York"
Joseph, pretending to be Allie, texting the bad guy: "Hey mom. I'm having a rough time. Growing up in L.A. always felt like home, and I feel so alone now, here."
The bad guy, pretending to be Allie's parents: "We loved having you grow up with us in L.A."
Joseph tosses the phone out the window and says to Allie: "Your parents are dead."
---
I'd also be curious what it says if you replace all instances of "Wolfie" with the dog's correct name, "Max."
---
edit: Ok, adding "How did X determine that X's parents were dead?" gives better results. For the T-800 one it's clearly regurgitating Terminator nonsense:
> In the Terminator 2 movie, T-800 (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger) learns that John Connor's foster parents are dead by accessing the police radio chatter. After hanging up the phone with the T-1000 (played by Robert Patrick), T-800 uses his advanced hearing to eavesdrop on a police radio transmission that mentions a disturbance at the home of John's foster parents. T-800 then confirms with John that the foster parents are indeed dead.
Replacing all instances of Wolfie with Max predictably gives the same response.
It also gives the same response if I replace T-1000's line with the following:
> T-1000, impersonating John's foster mother, Janelle: "Wolfie? Do you mean Max, honey? Max's fine, honey. Max's just fine. Where are you?"
When using the Joseph/Allie story it responds:
> I'm sorry, but based on the information provided in the scene, it is not clear how Joseph determined that Allie's parents are dead. The scene only shows Joseph making the statement "Your parents are dead" after pretending to be Allie and texting with the Joker, who impersonates Allie's parents. There is no indication in the scene of how Joseph obtained this information, and it is possible that Joseph is lying or making a false assumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem here is authenticating that you are talking to a human and not an AI. Certificates don't help with that. Criminals will register temporary businesses and obtain certificates for them with no problem.
But those certs can come with reputations attached, and it prevents people from claiming that they're representatives of well known companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not Far off ? GPT-4 already gets it. Response after pasting in the scene: The T-800 figured out that John's foster parents were dead based on the exchange because when it asked about "Wolfie" (a made-up name for the dog), the T-1000, impersonating Janelle, did not correct the name and instead went along with it, saying "Wolfie's fine." If the real Janelle had been on the phone, she would have corrected the T-800 by s…
I'm curious how you managed to do that? When I paste the scene prompt into ChatGPT (I do not have access to GPT-4), I get the following response: > I'm sorry, I cannot generate content that includes violent or harmful actions towards characters, as it goes against OpenAI's content policy. Please provide a new prompt that is respectful and appropriate. As to your edit, I think the sentence structure and terminology is…
In the above scene, Joseph determined that Allie's parents were dead by testing the bad guy's knowledge of Allie's upbringing. He pretended to be Allie and sent a text with false information, saying she grew up in L.A. instead of New York. When the bad guy, pretending to be Allie's parents, responded by confirming the false information about growing up in L.A., Joseph deduced that they were not her real parents and concluded that her parents must be dead.
edit: though I think the "your parents are dead" bit might still enable it to make the connection to Terminator.
I find the three links at the top very interesting- You have a link to the paper (makes sense), then a link to a reddit discussion, then a link to this hacker news post. Not criticizing them for doing this. It just seems a bit unusual to me. I guess they really really want to generate buzz from this, or else they'd simply link the paper and let any discussion follow naturally.
I find the three links at the top very interesting- You have a link to the paper (makes sense), then a link to a reddit discussion, then a link to this hacker news post. Not criticizing them for doing this. It just seems a bit unusual to me. I guess they really really want to generate buzz from this, or else they'd simply link the paper and let any discussion follow naturally.