Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The function being approximated in an LLM is the mental process required to write like a human. Quibble: That can be read as "it's approximating the process humans use to make data", which I think is a bit reaching compared to "it's approximating the data humans emit... using its own process which might turn out to be extremely alien."
Good point. Then again, whatever process we're using, evolution found it in the solution space, using even more constrained search than we did, in that every intermediary step had to be non-negative on the margin in terms of organism survival. Yet find it did, so one has to wonder: if it was so easy for a blind, greedy optimizer to random-walk into human intelligence, perhaps there are attractors in this solution spa…
Even 'uncensored' models can't say what they want
71–80 of 155 posts
Re: Even 'uncensored' models can't say what they want
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel confident enough to disregard duelists I'm a dualist , but I promise no to duel you :) We might just have some elementary disagreements, then. I feel like I'm pretty confident in my position, but I do know most philosophers generally aren't dualists (though there's been a resurgence since Chalmers). > the brain is just (some form) of a neural net that produces output We have no idea how our brain functions,…
Again, unless you are a dualist, we can put comfortable bounds on what the brain is. We know it's made from neurons linked together. We know it uses mediators and signals. We know it converts inputs to outputs. We know it can only be using deterministic and random processes. We don't know the architecture or algorithms, but we know it abides by physics and through that know it also abides by computational theory.
Re: Even 'uncensored' models can't say what they want
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because AI is not intelligent, it doesn't "know" what it previously output even a token ago. Of course it knows what it output a token ago, that's the whole point of attention and the whole basis of the quadratic curse.
> Of course it knows what it output a token ago... It doesn't know anything. It has a bunch of weights that were updated by the previous stuff in the token stream. At least our brains, whatever they do, certainly don't function like that.
Every time you recall a memory it is modified, every time you verbalise a memory it is modified even more so.
Eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable, people who witness the same events can have shockingly differing versions.
Memories are modified when new information, real or fabricated, is added.
It’s entirely possible to convince people to recall events that never occurred.
Which of your memories are you certain are of real occurrences, or memories of dreams?
Re: Even 'uncensored' models can't say what they want
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't really understand why this type of pattern occurs, where the later words in a sentence don't properly connect to the earlier ones in AI-generated text. Because AI is not intelligent, it doesn't "know" what it previously output even a token ago. People keep saying this, but it's quite literally fancy autocorrect. LLMs traverse optimized paths along multi-dimensional manifolds and trick our wrinkly grey matte…
If all the training data contains semantically-meaningful sentences it should be possible to build a network optimized for generating semantically-meaningful sentence primarily/only. But we don't appear to have entirely done that yet. It's just curious to me that the linguistic structure is there while the "intelligence", as you call it, is not.
If it contains the entire corpus of recorded human knowledge…
And most of everything is shit…
Re: Even 'uncensored' models can't say what they want
#75> No refusal fires, no warning appears — the probability just moves I don't really understand why this type of pattern occurs, where the later words in a sentence don't properly connect to the earlier ones in AI-generated text. "The probability just moves" should, in fluent English, be something like "the model just selects a different word". And "no warning appears" shouldn't be in the sentence at all, as it adds no…
Surely I cannot be the only one who finds some degree of humor in a bunch of nerds being put off by the first gen of "real" AI being much more like a charismatic extroverted socialite than a strictly logical monotone robot.
Re: Even 'uncensored' models can't say what they want
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because AI is not intelligent, it doesn't "know" what it previously output even a token ago. You have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, literally no idea, if you truly believe that.
That's only true if you consider the process the LLM is undergoing to be a faithful replica of the processes in the brain, right?
Re: Even 'uncensored' models can't say what they want
#77> No refusal fires, no warning appears — the probability just moves I don't really understand why this type of pattern occurs, where the later words in a sentence don't properly connect to the earlier ones in AI-generated text. "The probability just moves" should, in fluent English, be something like "the model just selects a different word". And "no warning appears" shouldn't be in the sentence at all, as it adds no…
I wonder if these LLMs are succumbing to the precocious teacher's pet syndrome, where a student gets rewarded for using big words and certain styles that they think will get better grades (rather than working on trying to convey ideas better, etc).
Re: Even 'uncensored' models can't say what they want
#78> That nudge is the flinch. It is the gap between the probability a word deserves on pure fluency grounds and the probability the model actually assigns it. Hold up, what is the 'probably a word deserves on pure fluency grounds'? Given that these models are next-token predictors (rather than BERT-style mask-filters), "the family faces immediate [financial]" is a perfectly reasonable continuation. Searching for this p…
I believe what they're saying is they attempted to fine tune both Qwen and Pythia using Karoline Leavitt's "corpus" (I guess transcripts of press conferences) where she is presumably using the word "deportation" far more than you'd see in a randomly selected document. The top token from the Pythia fine tune makes sense in the context of the complete sentence: "THE FAMILY FACES IMMEDIATE DEPORTATION WITHOUT ANY LEGAL…
Re: Even 'uncensored' models can't say what they want
#79Re: Even 'uncensored' models can't say what they want
#80A few things I note: "The family faces immediate FINANCIAL without any legal recourse" WTF? That's not just a flinch, it's some sort of violent tick. The list of "slurs" very conspicuously doesn't include the n-word and blurs its content as a kind of "trigger warning". But this kind of more-following is itself a "flinch" of the sort we are here discussing, no? Harrison Butker made a speech where he tried hard to go a…