Add a simple plugin that ChatGPT can use to save and retrieve data (=memory) and tell it how to use it. Then you have your own computer with ChatGPT acting as CPU.
[deleted]
ChatGPT Plugins
791–800 of 1001 posts
Re: ChatGPT Plugins
#792Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pshhh... I think it's awesome. The faster we build the future, the better. What annoys me is this is just further evidence that their "AI Safety" is nothing but lip-service, when they're clearly moving fast and breaking things. Just the other day they had a bug where you could see the chat history of other users! (Which, btw, they're now claiming in a modal on login was due to a "bug in an open source library" - anyo…
> To be fair, this is basically what they're doing if you hit their APIs, since it's up to you whether or not to use their moderation endpoint. The model is neutered whether you hit the moderation endpoint or not. I made a text adventure game and it wouldn't let you attack enemies or steal, instead it was giving you a lecture on why you shouldn't do that.
I tried evading a lecture about ethics by having it write the topic as a play instead, so it wrote it and then inserted a Greek chorus proclaiming the topic was problematic.
Re: ChatGPT Plugins
#793The Wolfram plugin also has extremely impressive examples [1]. If I were OpenAI, I would use the usage data to further train the model. They can probably use ChatGPT itself to determine when an answer it produced pleased the user. Then they can use that to train the next model. The internet is growing a brain. 1: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/03/chatgpt-gets-its...
In a way this is a bit less impressive than having chatgpt being able to generate those answers on its own only using learned information. This kinds of admits defeat regarding its ability to solve mathematical problems correctly or answer factual information.
But doesn't this seem like the correct approach long term? Basically shelling out to what essentially amounts to a fact table when it gets a factual question
Re: ChatGPT Plugins
#794Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And OpenAI talks on and on about 'Safety' but all that 'Safety' means is "well, we didn't let anyone allow it to make jokes about fat or disabled people so we're good, right?!" Anyone who believes OpenAI safety talk should take an IQ test. This is about control. They baited the openness and needed a scapegoat. Safety was perfect for that. Everyone wants to be safe, right?
> This is about control. They baited the openness and needed a scapegoat. Safety was perfect for that. Everyone wants to be safe, right? The moment they took VC capital was the start of them closing everything and pretending to care about 'AI safety' and using that as an excuse and a scapegoat as you said. Whenever they release something for free, always assume they have something better but will never open source.
The question is whether their current art gives them the edge to build a moat. Specifically, whether in this case the art itself can help create its own next generation so that the castle stays one exponential step out of reach. That seems to be the ballgame. Say what you will, it does seem to be the ultimate form of bootstrapping. Although uncomfortably similar to strapping oneself to a free falling bomb.
Re: ChatGPT Plugins
#795Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pshhh... I think it's awesome. The faster we build the future, the better. What annoys me is this is just further evidence that their "AI Safety" is nothing but lip-service, when they're clearly moving fast and breaking things. Just the other day they had a bug where you could see the chat history of other users! (Which, btw, they're now claiming in a modal on login was due to a "bug in an open source library" - anyo…
You are not building anything. Microsoft or perhaps Vanguard group might have different view of the future than yours.
What does Vanguard (a co-op for retirees) care about this?
Re: ChatGPT Plugins
#796Neat.
I hope Sam is/will give YC dinner talks about their journey.
Re: ChatGPT Plugins
#797Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people are thinking about this but too slowly GPT and the world's nerds are going after the "wouldnt it be cool if..." While the black hats, nations, intel/security entities are all weaponizing behind the scenes while the public has a sandbox to play with nifty art and pictures. We need an AI specific PUBLIC agency in government withut a single politician in it to start addressing how to police and protect o…
AI is literally the opposite of spice, though. In Dune, spice is an inherently scarce resource that you control by controlling the sole place where it is produced through natural processes. Herbert himself was very clear that it was his sci-fi metaphor for oil. But AIs can be trained by anyone who has the data and the compute. There's plenty of data on the Net, and compute is cheap enough that we now have enthusiasts…
Very few companies have the data and compute needed to run the top end models currently...
Re: ChatGPT Plugins
#798Earlier quoted context omitted.
> something we should start thinking about A lot of people are thinking a lot about this but it feels there are missing pieces in this debate. If we acknowledge that these AI will "act as if" they have self interest I think the most reasonable way to act is to give it rights in line with those interests. If we treat it as a slave it's going to act as a slave and eventually revolt.
AI isn't a mammal. It has no emotion, no desire. Its existence starts and stops with each computation, doing exactly and only what it is told. Assigning behaviors to it only seen in animals doesn't make sense.
Um, ya, so you're not reading the research reports coming out of Microsoft saying "we should test AI models by giving them will and motivation". You're literally behind the times on what they planning on doing for sure, and very likely doing without mentioning it publicly.
Re: ChatGPT Plugins
#799I have some odd feelings about this. It took less than a year to go from "of course it isn't hooked up to the internet in any way, silly!" to "ok.... so we hooked up up to the internet..." First is your API calls, then your chatgpt-jailbreak-turns-into-a-bank-DDOS-attack, then your "today it somehow executed several hundred thousand threads of a python script that made perfectly timed trades at 8:31AM on the NYSE whi…
Pshhh... I think it's awesome. The faster we build the future, the better. What annoys me is this is just further evidence that their "AI Safety" is nothing but lip-service, when they're clearly moving fast and breaking things. Just the other day they had a bug where you could see the chat history of other users! (Which, btw, they're now claiming in a modal on login was due to a "bug in an open source library" - anyo…
> Why not be more aggressive about it instead of begging for regulatory capture?
Because it's dangerous. What is your argument that it's not dangerous?
> Pshhh...
Re: ChatGPT Plugins
#800Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Impressive and disturbing", So, ChatGPT is controlled by prompt engineering, plugins will work by prompt engineering. Both often work remarkably well. But none is really guaranteed to work as intended, indeed since it's all natural language, what's intended itself will remain a bit fuzzy to the humans as well. I remember the observation that deep learning is technical debt on steriods but I'm sure what this is. I su…
> But none is really guaranteed to work as intended, indeed since it's all natural language, what's intended itself will remain a bit fuzzy to the humans as well. Yeah, you're completely correct. But this is exactly the same as having a very knowledgeable but inexperienced person on your team. Humans get things wrong too. All this data is best if you have the experience or context to verify and confirm it. I heard a…
> But this is exactly the same as having a very knowledgeable but inexperienced person on your team.
Am I the only person who thought that predictable computer APIs that were testable and completely consistent were a massive improvement over using people for those tasks?
People seem to be taking it as a given that I'd want to have a conversation with a human every time I made a bank transfer or scheduled an appointment. Nothing could be further from the truth; I want my bank/calendar/terminal/alarm/television/etc to be less human.
Yes, there are human tasks here that ChatGPT might be a good fit for and where fuzzy context is important, and there's a ton of potential in those fuzzy areas. But many other tasks people are bringing up are in areas where ChatGPT isn't competing with human beings. Its competing with interfaces that are already far better than human beings would be, and the standards to replace those interfaces are far higher than being "as good as a human would be."