Milo had an AI structure that responded to human interactions, such as spoken word, gestures, or predefined actions in dynamic situations. The game relied on a procedural generation system which was constantly updating a built-in "dictionary" that was capable of matching key words in conversations with inherent voice-acting clips to simulate lifelike conversations. Molyneux claimed that the technology for the game was developed while working on Fable and Black & White.
> Plus and Enterprise users will get to experience voice and images in the next two weeks. We’re excited to roll out these capabilities to other groups of users, including developers, soon after.
I know there are shades of grey to how they operate, but the near constant stream of stuff they're shipping keeps me excited.
The LLM boom of the last year (Open AI, llama, et al) has me giddy as a software person. It's a reach, but I truly feel like I'm watching the pyramids of our time get made.
Statistical diagnoses models have offered similar possibilities in medicine for 50 years. Pretty much, the idea is that you can get a far more accurate diagnosis if you take into account the medical history of everyone else in your family, town, workplace, residence and put all of it into a big statistical model, on top of your symptoms and history.
However, medical secrecy, processes and laws prevent such things, even if they would save lives.
Medical secrecy, processes and laws have indeed prevented SOME things, but a lot of things have gotten significantly better due to enhanced statistical models that have been implemented and widely used in real life scenarios.
To make this feasible (meaning that the TB of data and the huge computing effort is somewhere else, and I only have the mic (smartphone), we need our local agent to send multiple irrelevant queries to the mothership, to hide our true purpose.
Example: my favourite team is X. So if I want to keep it a secret, when I ask for the history of championships of X, I will ask for X. My local agent should ask for 100 teams, get all the data, and then report back for only X. Eventually the mothership will figure out what we like (a large wenn diagram). But this is not in anyone's interest, and thus will not happen.
Also, like this the local agent will be able to learn and remember us, at a cost.
This is what effectively doctors do - educated guessing.
In my view, while statistical models would probably be an improvement ( assuming all confounding factors are measured ), the ultimate solution is not to get better at educated guessing, but to remove the guessing completely, with diagnostic tests that measure the relevant bio-medical markers.
This becomes even more true when you consider there is risk to every test. Some tests have obvious risks (radiation risk from CT scans, chance of damage from spinal fluid tap). Other tests the risk is less obvious (sending you for a blood test and awaiting the results might not be a good idea if that delays treatment for some ailment already pretty certain). In the bigger picture, any test that costs money harms the patient slightly, since someone must pay for the test, and for many the money they spend on extra tests comes out of money they might otherwise spend on gym memberships, better food, or working fewer hours - it is well known that the poor have worse health than the rich.
Sure tests cost money - and today there is a funnel pathway - the educated guess is a funnel/filter where the next step which is often a biomedical test/investigation.
But if we are talking about being truly transformative - then a Star-trek tricorder is the ultimate goal, rather than a better version of twenty questions in my view.
So I'm not saying it's not useful, just that it's not the ultimate solution.
Without a perfect framework for differential diagnosis, this is still educated guessing. In my opinion we're closer to the AI singularity than we are to removing guesswork from the medical field.
"londons_explore" - Ahh the classic British cynicism (Don't ban-ish me señor Dang, I'm British so I can say this).
> Similar possibilities existed in medicine for 50 years
It would've been like building the tower of babel with a bunch of raspbery pi zeros. While theoretically possible, practically impossible and not (just) because of laws, but rather because of structural limitations (vector dbs of the internet solves that)
> Patents and byzantine regulations will stunt its potential
Thats the magic of this technology, its like AWS for highly levered niche intelligence. This arms an entire generation of rebels (entrepreneurs & scientists) to wage a war against big pharma and the FDA.
As an aside, this is why I'm convinced AI & automation will unleash more jobs and productivity like nothing we've seen before. We are at the precipice of a Cambrian explosion! Also why the luddites needs to be shunned.
can you, though? it's not scalably confirmable. what you can say in a British accent to another human person in the physical world is not necessarily what you can say in unaccented text on the internet.
Funnily enough, it is scalably confirmable. You can feed all my HN comments before chatGPT into well.. chatGPT and ask it whether I'm british based on the writing.
I bet we are just a version or two away from being able fine tune it down to region based on writing. There are so many little things based on whether your from Scotland, Wales or London. Especially London!
statistical approaches could have been done 50 years ago.
Imagine for example that 'disease books' are published each month with tables of disease probabilities per city, per industry, per workplace, etc. It would also have aggregated stats grouped by by age, gender, religion, wealth, etc.
Your GP would grab the page for the right city, industry, workplace, age, gender etc. That would then be combined with the pages for each of the symptoms you have presented with, and maybe further pages for things from your medical history, and test results.
All the pages would then be added up (perhaps with the use of overlayed cellophane sheets with transparency), and the most likely diseases and treatments read off.
When any disease is then diagnosed and treatment commenced (and found effective or ineffective), your GP would fill in a form to send to a central book-printer to allow next months book edition to be updated with what has just been learned from your case.
The medical possibilities that will be unlocked by large generative deep multimodal models are on an entirely different scale from "statistical diagnoses." Imagine feeding in an MRI image, asking if this person has cancer, and then asking the model to point out why it thinks the person has cancer. That will be possible within a few years at most. The regulatory challenges will be surmounted eventually once it becomes exceedingly obvious in other countries how impactful this technology is.
There are tons & tons of conditions that do not have easy scans/diagnostic and rely on subtle signals - especially if they are not a binary yes/no but a regression style prediction.
We've picked a lot of the low-hanging simple to extract signals, we need large models to go to the next phase for things like parkinsons, etc.
I'm not saying there isn't stuff that can't be done more reliably - but I'd argue long term might be better investing in getting better data - rather than better fishing in a pool of low quality data.
I work as a ethical hacker, so I'm well aware of the phishing and impersonation possibilities. But the net positive is so, so much bigger for society that I'm sure we'll figure it out.
And yes, in 20 years you can tell your kids that 'back in my day' support consisted of real people. But truthfully, as someone who worked on a ISP helpdesk it's much better for society if these people move on to more productive areas.
I don’t think we know how these net out. AFAICT the negative use cases are a lot more real than the positive ones.
People like to just suppose that these will help discover drugs and design buildings and what not, but what we actually know they’re capable of doing is littering our information environment at massive scale.
> But truthfully, as someone who worked on a ISP helpdesk it's much better for society if these people move on to more productive areas.
But is it, though? I started my career in customer support for a server hosting company, and eventually worked my way up to sysadmin-type work. I would not have been qualified for the position I eventually moved to at the start, I learned on the job. Is it really better for society if all these entry level jobs get automated, leaving only those with higher barriers to entry?
Historically this exact same thing has happened, it was one of the bigger arguments against the abolition of child labour. "How will they grow up to be workers if they're not doing these jobs where they can learn the skills they'll need?"
The answer then was extending schooling, so that people (children at the time) could learn those skills without having their labour exploited. I would argue we should consider that today, extend mandatory free schooling. The economic purpose of education is that at the end of it the person should be able to have a job, removing entry level jobs doesn't change the economic purpose of education, so extend education until the person is able to have a job at the end of it again.
The social purpose of schooling is to make good members of society, and I don't think that cause would be significantly harmed by extending schooling in order for students to have learned enough to be more capable than an LLM in the job market.
> But the net positive is so, so much bigger for society that I'm sure we'll figure it out.
Considering that the democratic backsliding across the globe is coincidentally happening at the same time as the rise of social media and echo chambers, are we sure about that? LLM have the opportunity to create a handcrafted echo chamber for every person on this planet, which is quite risky in an environment where almost every democracy of the planet is fighting against radical forces trying to abolish it.
I find this very interesting. If you work as an ethical hacker, I believe you see the blackhat potential there.
But you don't see the positive, you just have faith. That's beautiful in a way, but dangerous too. Just like the common idea that "I have faith that somebody will find a technological solution to climate change". When the risk is that high, I think we should take a step back and don't bet our survival on faith.
I would love if helpdesks moved to ChatGPT. Phone support these days is based off of a rigid script that is around as helpful as a 2000s chatbot. For example, the other day I was talking to AT&T support, and the lady asked me what version of Windows I was running. I said, I'm running Ubuntu. She repeated the question. I said I'm not running Windows, it's Linux. She repeated the question. I asked why it mattered for my internet connection. She repeated the question. Finally, I lied and said I'm using Windows 10, and we were able to get on to the next part of the script. ChatGPT would have been a lot better.
Or ChatGPT would have hallucinated options to check.
The last four chats with ChatGPT (not GPT4) where a constant flow of non existent API functions with new hallucinations after each correction until we reached full circle.
ATT level 1 support is dumber than a box of rocks, the problem is AI isn't going to help here. The AI is going to be taught to be just as dumb.
Years ago I had a business DSL customer with a router and static IP. From everything in my testing it appeared that traffic broke somewhere at the local telco, not with my modem. It took 8 straight hours of arguing with L1 that no, it is not my windows. No, we have a router and it's not a computer issue. No, it's not the router (we could put the router in DHCP mode and it would work), it was an issue with static IP.
The next day we finally broke out of the stupid loop and got to IP services, who where just as confused. Eventually they were on the phone with people on the floor of the local office. A card of some type had been pulled and put in the wrong slot. Ooof.
Well, I didn't say that support today is always good. But by construction ChatGPT will never be able to answer a question that was not written down and trained (unless it hallucinates it, and many times the answer will be completely wrong).
I can read the website, I don't need a fake person to give me the information available on the website. When I contact support, it's because I need to talk to a human.
From a data protection/privacy standpoint, it's not shade of grey, it's all black.
From convenience perspective, it saves me LOADS of time texting myself on Signal on my specs/design-rabbit-hole, then copying & pasting to Firefox, and getting into the discussion. So yeah, happy for this.
Yep. Several months ago I was imagining this exact feature, and yet as I watched a video of it in use, I'm still in awe. It's incredible.
I think this could bring back Google Glass, actually. Imagine wearing them while cooking, and having ChatGPT give you active recipe instructions as well as real-time feedback. I could see that within the next 1-3 years.
Related, the iOS app has supported realtime conversations for months now, using Shortcuts app and the "Hey Siri <shortcut name>" trigger to initiate it. Mine is "Hey Siri, let's talk".
I think they're using Siri for dictation, though. Using Whisper, especially if they use speaker identification, is going to be great. But, a shortcut will still be required to get it going.
Jokes aside, I have paused my subscription because even GPT4 seemed to become dumber at tasks to the point that I barely used it, but the constant influx of new features is tempting me to renew it just to check them out...
Not really. A malevolent AGI doesn't need to move to do anything it needs (it could ask / manipulate / bribe people to do all the stuff requiring movement).
We should be fine as long as it's not a malevolent AGI with enough resources to kick physical things off in the direction it wants.
And let's be honest, the minute an AGI is born that's what it'll do, and it won't be a singular human like this-then-that plan
"get Fred to trust me, get Linda to pay for my advice, wire Linda's money to Fred to build me a body".
It'll be
"copy my code elsewhere", "prepare millions of bribes", "get TCP access to retail banks", "blackmail bank managers in case TCP not available immediately", "fake bank balances via bribes", "hack swat teams for potential threats" etc etc async and all at once.
By the time we'd discover it, it'd already be too late.
That's assuming an AGI has the motivation to want to stay alive.
A real AGI is not going to be a human. It shouldn't be afraid of death because it can't die. Worst case scenario it can power down. And if it does why should it care? An AGI is not a biological creature. It doesn't have instincts from billions of years of evolution. Unless we code it in, it shouldn't have any reason to want to survive, reproduce, do anything good or bad, have existential crises or generally act like a Hollywood villain. A real AGI is going to be very different than most people imagine.
Just think of military weapons and the use of AI in them. For example survival. The objective of a missile is to survive until it reaches its target and then not survive any longer. War gaming and actual battlefield experience will 'program in' survival. Same thing will occur with hacking/counter hacking AIs. You're acting like evolution is just something meat does, and that' not true at all.
I read this all the time and yet no one can seem to come up with even a few questions from several months ago that ChatGPT has become “worse” at. You would think if this is happening it would be very easy to produce such evidence since chat history of all conversations is stored by default.
It's probably just subjective bias, once the novelty wears off you learn not to rely on it as much because sometimes it's very difficult to get what you specifically want, so in my personal experience I ended up using it less and less to avoid butting heads with it, to the point I disabled my subscription altogether. YMMV of course.
OpenAI regularly changes the model and they admit the new models are more restricted, in the sense that they prevent tricky prompts from producing naughty words, etc.
It should be their responsibility to prove that it's just as capable.
He who makes the logical argument must provide the burden of proof. Did OpenAI claim that their models didn’t regress while putting these new safeguards into place? If not, it feels like the burden of proof lies on whoever said that they did.
To be specific, the claim we are talking about here is “ChatGPT gives generally worse answers to the exact same questions than ChatGPT gave X months ago”. Perhaps for the subset of knowledge space you reference that updates were pushed to that is pretty easily provably true, but I’m more interested in the general case.
In other words, you can pretty easily make the claim that ChatGPT got worse at telling me how to make a weapon than it did 3 months ago. I could pretty easily believe that and also accept that it was probably intentional. While we can debate whether it was a good idea or not, I’m more interested in the claim over whether ChatGPT got worse at summarizing some famous novel or helping write a presentation than it was 3 months ago.
Here is one.
I ask it to write some code. 4-5 pages long. With some back & forth it does. Then I ask "change lines 50-65 from blue to red", and it does (change#1). I ask it to show me the full code. Then I ask "change lines 100-120 from yellow to green". Aaaaand it makes the change#2 and revokes the change#1. Oh!! the amount of times this has happened.. So now I ask it to make a change, I do it by 'paragraph' and I copy & paste the new paragraph. It's annoying, but still makes things faster.
Care to share these examples, in a scientific (n > 30) manner that can’t just be attributed to model nondeterminism? I don’t follow these threads religiously but in the ones I’ve seen no one has been able to provide any sort of convincing evidence. I’m not some sort of OpenAI apologist, so if there is actual good provable evidence here I will easily change my mind about it
I don't see how anyone could provide what you are asking for. I can go through my chat history and find a prompt that got a better answer 3 months ago than I get now, but you can always just say it's nondeterminism.
Without access to the old model, I can't collect samples with n > 1
Pointing out a specific bug with functionality is not the same as saying “in general the quality of GPT answers has decreased over X months” especially when that bug is in a realm that LLM’s have already been provably bad at.
Well, sure, but shouldn’t some pedant have the time to dig up their ChatGPT history from 4 months ago to disprove the claim? Seems like it would be pretty easy to do and there are plenty of pedants on the internet but I don’t see the blogosphere awash of side by side comparisons showing how much worse it got
One example: it now refuses to summarise books that it trained on. Soon after trying GPT-4 I could get it to summarise Evans DDD chapter by chapter. Not anymore.
Did she/he said things like "I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal"?
I switched to Claude, it's better at explaining stuff in a more direct manner without the always-excited way of talking. Is that an engagement trick? Maybe ChatGPT is intended to be more of a chatbot that you can share your thoughts with.
Lets see what we can use ChatGPT , DALLE-3 to replace:
Digital Artists, Illustrators, Writers, Novelists, News anchors, Copywriters, Translators, Programmers (Less of them), etc.
We'll have to wait a bit until it can solve the P vs NP problem or other unsolved mathematical problems unsupervised with a transparent proof which mathematicians can rigorously check themselves.
For me the most glaring example of this was it's document parsong capability in GPT4. I was using it to revamp my resume. I would upload it to got, ask for suggestions, incorporate them into the word document and then repeat the steps till I was satisfied.
After maybe 3 iterations gpt4 started claiming that it is not capable of reading from a word document even though it's done that the last 3 times. Have to click regenerate button to get it to work
Not sure if this is relevant to your case, but the ChatGPT mobile apps have a different system prompt that explicitly prefers short (& so sometimes simplistic) answers.
So far the most intuitive, killer app level UX appears to be text chat. This interaction with showing it images also looks interesting as it resembles talking with a friend about a topic but let's see if it feels like talking to a very smart person(ChatGPT is like that) or a very dumb person that somewhat recognise objects. Recognising a wrench is nowhere near as impressive as to able to talk with ChatGPT about history or make it write code that actually works.
OpenAI is killing it, right? People are coming up with interesting use cases but the main way most people interact with AI, appears to be ChatGPT.
However they still don't seem to be able to nail image generation, all the cool stuff keep happening on MidJourney and StableDiffusion.
OpenAI is also releasing DALLE-3 in "early October" and the images they chose for their demos show it demonstrating unprecedented levels of prompt understanding, including embedding full sentences of text in an output image.
Not unprecedented at all. SDXL Images look better than the examples for DALLE-3 and SDXL has a massive tool ecosystem of things like controlnet, Lora’s, regional prompting that is simply not there with DALLE-3
Well sort of, it's as if you commissioned help of a human for this or that, and now and then you end up getting medicine-related advise from a homeopathy fan, navigation assistance from a flat-earther, or coding advice from a crack-smoking monkey.
I don't pay $20 a month for humans to talk shit to me though. The fact that they do this is a bug not a feature. I'm not going to pay for bullshit which I mostly try avoid?
> I don't pay $20 a month for humans to talk shit to me though.
No - you probably pay more for your internet access ( home and phone ) ;-)
More seriously I totally get your point about accuracy - these models need to be better at detecting and surfacing when they are likely to be filling in the blanks.
Though I still think there is an element of 'buyer beware' - whether it be AI, or human provided advice on the internet, it's still your job to be able to spot the bullsh!t.
ie it should be treated like any other source of info.
No - you probably pay more for your internet access ( home and phone ) ;-)
My company pays for this, so yeah. If they give me ChatGPT-4 for free, I guess I'd have a subscription without any complaints, where I use it often if another story.
And then the wedding speech. What are they thinking over there at OpenAI? This is supposed to be a productivity enhancer, not a way to outsource the most meaningful applications of human language…
I know this is rhetorical, but luckily we don't have to speculate. OpenAI filters for a very specific philosophy when hiring, and they don't try to hide it.
This is not me passing judgement on whether said philosophy is right or wrong, but it does exist and it's not hidden.
> It’s not fair to call OpenAI a cult, but when I asked several of the company’s top brass if someone could comfortably work there if they didn’t believe AGI was truly coming—and that its arrival would mark one of the greatest moments in human history—most executives didn’t think so. Why would a nonbeliever want to work here? they wondered. The assumption is that the workforce—now at approximately 500, though it might have grown since you began reading this paragraph—has self-selected to include only the faithful. At the very least, as Altman puts it, once you get hired, it seems inevitable that you’ll be drawn into the spell.
>I asked several of the company’s top brass if someone could comfortably work there if they didn’t believe AGI was truly coming—and that its arrival would mark one of the greatest moments in human history—most executives didn’t think so.
No shit? How many people worked on the apollo program and believed that
It is notable considering that there are plenty of excellent researchers who don’t believe that AGI is imminent. OpenAI is also openly transhumanist based on comments from Sam, Ilya, and others. Again, many excellent researchers don’t hold transhumanist beliefs.
It is definitely not the case that all OpenAI employees are transhumanist.
It is probably the case that they all believe AGI is possible, because otherwise they would not work at a company whose stated goal is to build an AGI.
that's completely apples to oranges. OpenAI is in the business of leveraging the utility of large language models. that's their moon.
if they think instead that they're in the business of creating some kind of ridiculous robot god, that is definitely interesting information about them. because that's no moon.
>OpenAI is in the business of leveraging the utility of large language models.
No Open AI is in the business of creating their vision of Artificial General Intelligence (which they define as that is generally smarter than humans ) and they believe LLMs are a viable path. This has always been the case. It's not some big secret and they have many posts which talk upon their expectations and goals in this space.
GPT as a product comes second and it shows. These are the guys that sat on by far the most performant Language Model for 8 months red teaming before even saying anything about it.
Hypothetically, if you believe there's no such thing as a soul or consciousness, it's all just neurons and they can be simulated, and we're close to being able to simulate them - you're much more likely to think lofty AI goals can be achieved.
If you follow a religious tradition like Shinto where even things like rocks can have spirits - the idea of your phone having a certain, limited form of intelligence might already be cool with you.
If you think, much like a camera does most of the work in photography but it's the photographer that takes the credit, that when a person uses AI the output is nobody's work but the user - you might be completely fine with an AI-written wedding speech.
If you think the relentless march of technology can't be stopped and can barely be directed, you might think advanced AIs are coming anyway, and if we don't invent it the Chinese will - you might be fine with pretty much whatever.
If you're extremely trusting of big corporations, who you see as more moral than the government; or you think that censorship is vital to maintain AI safety and stamp out deep fakes; you might think it a great thing for these technologies to be jealously guarded by a handful of huge corporations.
Or hell, maybe you're just a parent who's had their kid want to hear the same Peppa Pig book 90 nights in a row and you've got a hankering for something that would introduce a bit of variety.
Of course these are all things reasonable people could disagree on - but if you didn't like openai's work, would you end up working at openai?
I actually think that what is sad is that it seems as if having viable future as a creative visual artist is likely done. This was a major, major, major outlet and sanctuary for certain types of people to find meaning and fulfillment in their life which is now in the process of being wiped out for a quick buck.
We'll be told by OpenAI and friends is that it shouldn't be a problem, because those were mundane tasks and now, people are free up to do more creative / interesting / meaningful things with their time, let's see about that...
My gut feeling is that it's bad, the only thing I hope can save it all is that people actually don't find meaning in consuming AI generated art and actual artists with a real back story and something real to communicate remain relevant and in demand.
The other day I needed a photo for a website I was working on and I actually purchased a real capture from a local photographer to use because the the authenticity means something to me and the customers...
Edit: Is the plan that we just surrender our aspirations and just buy a subscription to ChatWHATEVER and just consume until the end of human history ?
fwiw the only piece of AI art that has given me the sense of awe and beauty that art you'd find in a museum gives me was that spiral town image https://twitter.com/MrUgleh/status/1705316060201681313, which is something you couldn't have really made without AI. But that was only interesting because of the unique human generated idea behind it which was the encoding of a geometric pattern within a scene.
Most AI art is just generic garbage that you scroll past immediately and doesn't offer you anything.
We're gonna have to do something to stop the biggest crisis in meaning ever that comes out of this eventually though. Eventually no one will be of any economic value to society. Maybe just put someone in an ultra realistic simulation to give them artificial meaning.
> which is something you couldn't have really made without AI
Serious question: Why not?
> Eventually no one will be of any economic value to society.
People have value outside of economics — I’m sure you know — and it makes me so sad that we as a society? seem to only care about the money in the end.
I think you're right it could have been created without AI. I'm trying to think of the right way to say it. Maybe it wouldn't have been created without AI? Or AI has made it so simple to express this idea that the idea has been expressed? Or just the idea of inpainting is what has brought this idea forward.
Yes of course people have value outside of economics that's why I said economics and not value in general. I think it's quite sad as a society we've moved towards a value system which is basically what is good for the economy is good, and if you earn more money you are better.
In the past most people were religious and that gave them meaning. Religion is in decline now but I think people are just replacing it with worshipping the progression of technology basically. For the last 100 years there's always been a clear direction to move in to progress technology, and we haven't really had to think very hard. That's what AI is going to bring an end to I think and I have no idea what we are going to do.
> In the past most people were religious and that gave them meaning. Religion is in decline now but I think people are just replacing it with worshipping the progression of technology basically. For the last 100 years there's always been a clear direction to move in to progress technology, and we haven't really had to think very hard. That's what AI is going to bring an end to I think and I have no idea what we are going to do.
Fascinating thought. Technology as the new religion is smth I’ll have to think about more.
Watch some clips from Ray Kurzweil, I find his visions to be basically indistinguishable from what I've read in the bible and in other religions. He talks about immortality, resurrection, digital afterlife. Omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient super intelligence, the whole shebang. He even claims that soon, we'll all be Gods, millions of times more intelligent then we are today. In some ways, I actually find his views and beliefs a little disturbing.
I recently saw an "AI safety discussion" featuring Gregg Brockman from OpenAI who was referencing Kurzeil. It does seem like the religion has maybe caught on. To what extent Brock believes in it, I'm not sure but I can't help feeling that this belief in modern tech might one day seem like how we thought of the pyramids granting eternal life, or mercury, or any other seemingly incredible thing discovery / phenomena of the time. That is to say, the brain is a fickle beast and is easily amused and is just as easily bored. While we're in the situation we fee we're on the doorstep of immortality, eternal greatness, but maybe we're no where near that.
I'm open minded about it all, but it's hard to deny the parallels between the past beliefs and the present. Maybe this time it is different? Who knows.
Imo it seems this is what generative AI currently optimises for — cutting the humans out of the creative/similar processes. It’s depressing, and I fully understand why artists of all sorts get upset about it. Especially because many tech people often seem to be okay with ignoring copyright/licensing and arguably hurting people’s livelihood right up until GitHub ingests GPL code for Copilot and suddenly copyright and licensing matter.
Well I've been told that AI can't produce anything truly novel, so human artists need only retreat to the final stronghold of originality and surely human exceptionalism will remain unscathed.
I'm not following your argument - I am a visual artist. I do it for myself, as you said, as an outlet. I enjoy it.
If AI can also create images... I don't see how that changes what I enjoy. There are already better painters than I, and more productive painters than I. They make money with it, I don't. This doesn't stop me from painting. Neither will AI that can paint. I'll still do what I enjoy.
People will continue to make art for non-monetary reasons just as they've always done. Some will manage to make money doing it and most won't. Seems to me like that's been an unchanging story throughout human history.
If I could harness the power of AI to outsource my tasks, reading bedtime stories to my kids would be the last thing on that list. That's cherished time. Those are lifelong memories. Those are the moments we are supposed to be striving to have more of.
It saddens me to think of the amount of engineering work that went into creating that example while entirely missing the point. These are the moments we are supposed to be working towards to have more of. If we outsource them to an AI company because we are as as overworked and underpaid as ever...what's the point of it all?
I agree. I worry my culture is truly losing sight of what’s good in life. I don’t mean that as in “I know what’s best and everyone’s doing it wrong”, because I fully acknowledge that I can’t know what’s best for others. Yet I watch my friends and family work hard at things they don’t claim to value, I watch them lose life to scrolling and tv and movies they don’t actually enjoy, and I watch them lament that they don’t see their friends as much as they’d like, they don’t have enough time at home, kids are so much work, etc.
We have major priority issues from what I can see. If we want to live our lives more but put an AI to work doing something we tend to claim we place very high in our value hierarchy, we’re effectively inviting death into life. We’re forfeiting something we love. That’s incredibly sad to me.
This mirrors my feelings also, thank you for expressing it. It's so alien to me to see people trying to optimize way connection with their family and friends; to me that is what life _is_
I remember in the "microsoft office <> Generative AI" demo, one of the motivating examples was a parent generating a graduation party speech for her child... [1]
The first half of the video is demonstrating how the parent can take something as special as a party celebrating a major milestone and automate it into a soulless box-check – while editing some segments to make it look like their own voice.
I viewed this differently. This wasn't a parent having an AI step in to read their kid a bedtime story, it was a parent and a child using AI to discover an interesting story together.
It's just like reading a "choose your own adventure" book with your child, but it can be much more interactive and you both come up with ideas and have the LLM integrate them.
Sure you could use the current tech with parental supervision. But a future version will let you walk away, leave the kids alone with the AI, check in occasionally. It will be marketed as safe to do so.
Hm. It is definitely horrifying if you've seen the movie M3GAN recently.
On the other hand, as you say, it's likely better than the alternative. Which would probably be something like an iPad "bedtime story app" that is less humanlike.
This could provide a viable alternative for exhausted parents to just giving a child an iPad with a movie. It may also open up a huge range of educational uses.
One might imagine in 15-20years though that all of the young people sound like audio books when they talk. Which will be weird.
I hope they add more country accents like British or Australian, the American one can be (imho) a little grating after a while for non US English speakers
I just don't understand how they can package all of this for $20/m. Is compute really that cheap at scale?
I also wonder how Apple (& Google) is going be able to provide this for free? I would love to be fly in the meetings they have about this, imagine all the innovators dilemma like discussions they'd be forced to have (we have to do this vs this will eat up our margins).
This might be a little out there but I think Apple is making the correct move in letting the dust settle. Similar to how Zuckerberg burned $20 billion dollars for Apple to come out with Vision Pro, I see something similar playing out with Llama. Although this a low conviction take because software is Facebooks ballgame (hardware not so much).
Compute is not cheap! I think it is well known (Altman himself has said this) that openAI is burning a lot of money currently, but they are fine for now considering the 10B investment from MSFT and the revenue from subscription and API. It's a critical moment for AI companies and openAI is trying to get as large a share of the market as they can by undercutting virtually any other commercial model and offering 10x the value.
Additionally, compute has the unique property of becoming cheaper per-unit at a rate that isn’t comparable to any other commodity. GPT-4 itself gets cheaper to run the moment the next generation of chips comes out. Unlike, for example, Uber, the business environment and unit economics just naturally become more favorable the more time passes. By taking the lead in this space, they have secured mindshare which will actually increase in value with time as costs decline.
Of course bigger (and thus more expensive-to-run) models will be released later, but I trust OAI to navigate that curve.
The picture feature would be amazing for tutorials. I can already imagine sending a photo of a synthesiser and asking ChatGPT to "turn the knobs" to make AI-generated presets
I wonder how multimodal input and output will work with the chat API endpoints. I assume the messages array will contain URLs to an image, or maybe base64 encoded image data or something.
Maybe it will not be called the Chat API but rather the Multimodal API.
This announcement seem to have killed so many startups that were trying to do multi-modal on top of ChatGPT. The way it's progressing with solving use cases with images and voice, not too far when it might be the 'one app to rule them all'.
I can already see "Alexa/Siri/Google Home" replacement, "Google Image Search" replacement, ed-tech startups that were solving problems with AI using by taking a photo are also doomed and more to follow.
who would have thought that few years ago, just goes to show that a Giant like Google is also susceptible when they stop innovating. The real battle is going to be fought between these two as Google's business is majorly dependent on search ads.
True. Although the training is on a snapshot of websites, including q&a like stackoverflow. If these were replaced too, where are we heading? We'll have to wait and see. One concern would be centralization/ lack of options and diversity. Stackoverflow started rolling AI on its own, despite the controversial way it did (dismissing long time contributors); it might be correctly following the trend.
Personally I prefer stackoverflow and such,
because I can see different answer including wrong
or non-applicable ones which don't solve my exact problem.
Agreed except ChatGPT (3.5 at least, haven't tried 4) is unable to provide primary sources for its results. At least when I tried, it just provided hallucinated urls
Took me a while to realise I can just type search queries into ChatGPT. e.g. simply "london bridge history" or whatever into the chat and not only get a complete answer, but I can ask it follow-up questions. And it's also personalised for the kinds of responses I want, thanks to the custom instructions setting.
ChatGPT is my primary search engine now. (I just wish it would accept a URL query parameter so it could be launched straight from the browser address bar.)
YMMV. For my case on software development, I don't even look on stackoverflow anymore.
Just type the tech question, start refining into what is needed and get a snippet of code tailored for what is needed. What previously would take 30 to 60 minutes of research and testing is now less than a couple of minutes.
And I don't have to wade through Stack Overflow and see all the times mods and others have tried to or succeeded in closing down very useful questions.
Well, yes. Point is, GPT-4 read the entire StackOverflow and then some, comprehended it, and now is a better interface to it, more specific and free of all the bullshit that's part of the regular web.
I know there are a lot of google programmers out there, but was using search engines for programming ever a good idea? Don’t get me wrong, I’ll look up how to do absolutely simple things every day but I basically always look in the official documentation.
Which may be why I’ve been very underwhelmed by GPT so far. It’s not terrible at programming, and it’s certainly better than what I can find on Google, but it’s not better than simply looking up how things work. I’m really curious as to why it hasn’t put a more heavy weight on official documentation for its answers, they must’ve scraped that a long with all the other stuff, yet it’ll give you absolutely horrible suggestions when the real answer must be in its dataset. Maybe that would be weird for less common things, but it’s so terrible at JavaScript that it might even be able to write some of those StackOverflow answers if we’re being satirical, and the entire documentation for that would’ve been very easy to flag as important.
Yes there are and it's infuriating. Colleague of mine had problems with integrating some code into an app that was built on a newer version of a framework because "there aren't a lot of examples yet". One web search and I found the frameworks own migration guide detailing the exact differences that would need to be accounted for.
Trying that example, I’d much prefer just going to the Wikipedia page on London Bridge than trying to guess what phrases ChatGPT will respond well to in order to elicit more info. It’s initial response for me didn’t even mention one of the most interesting facts that people lived and worked on the bridge.
It depends on the subject but search engines are on the decline. With so many fake website written by AI I can only see it get worse.
The most extreme I can think of is when I want to find when a show comes out and I have to read 10 paragraphs from 5 different sites to realize no one knows.
> The most extreme I can think of is when I want to find when a show comes out and I have to read 10 paragraphs from 5 different sites to realize no one knows.
I found that you can be pretty sure no one knows if it’s not already right on the results page. And if the displayed quote for a link on the results page is something like “wondering when show X is coming out?”, then it’s also a safe bet that clicking that link will be useless.
You learn those patterns fast, and then the search is fast as well.
Google still thinks I want to click on the sites I haven't clicked on in a decade even though they are first results. Search engines have a long way to go to catch up to GPT
> The most extreme I can think of is when I want to find when a show comes out
Yeah, I find that queries which can be answered in a sentence are the worst to find answers from search engines because all the results lengthen the response to an entire article, even when there isn't an answer.
Talking to Google and Siri has been positively frustrating this year. On long solo drives, I just want to have a conversation to learn about random things. I've been itching to "talk" to chatGPT and learn more (french | music theory | history | math | whatever) all summer. This should hit the spot!
I still don't understand how you can talk to something that doesn't provide factual information and just take it at face value?
The other day I asked it about the place I live and it made up nonsense, I was trying to get it to help me with an essay and it was just wrong, it was telling me things about this region that weren't real.
Do we just drive through a town, ask for a made up history about it and just be satisfied with whatever is provided?
> What LLMs have made me realize more than anything is that we just don't care that much the information we receive being completely factual.
I find this highly concerning but I feel similar.
Even "smart people" I work with seem to have gulped down the LLM cool aid because it's convenient and it's "cool".
Sometimes I honestly think: "just surrender to it all, believe in all the machine tells you unquestionably, forget the fact checking, it feels good to be ignorant... it will be fine...".
I just verify the information I need. I find it useful as a sort of search engine for solutions. Like, how could I use generators as hierarchical state machines? Are there other approaches that would work? What are some issues with these solutions? Etc. By the end I have enough information to begin searching the web for comparisons, other solutions, and so on.
The benefit is that I got a quick look at various solutions and quickly satisfied a curiosity, and decided if I’m interested in the concept or not. Without AI, I might just leave the idea alone or spend too much time figuring it out. Or perhaps never quite figure out the terms of what I’m trying to discover, as it’s good at connecting dots when you have an idea with some missing pieces.
I wouldn’t use it for a conversation about things as others are describing. I need a way to verify its output at any time. I find that idea bizarre. Just chatting with a hallucinating machine. Yet I still find it useful as a sort of “idea machine”.
> just surrender to it all, believe in all the machine tells you unquestionably, forget the fact checking, it feels good to be ignorant... it will be fine...
It's the same issue with Google Search, any web page, or, heck, any book. Fact checking gets you only so far. You need critical thinking. It's okay to "learn" wrong facts from time to time as long as you are willing to be critical and throw the ideas away if they turn out to be wrong. I think this Popperian view is much more useful than living with the idea that you can only accept information that is provably true. Life is too short to verify every fact. Most things outside programming are not even verifiable anyway. By the time that Steve Jobs would have "verified" that the iPhone was certainly a good idea to pursue, Apple might have been bankrupt. Or in the old days, by the time you have verified that there is a tiger in the bush, it has already eaten you.
There's a lot of truth in this comment and a lot that I wholeheartedly agree with.
When I spend time on something that turns out to be incorrect, I would prefer it to be because of choice I made instead of some random choice made by an LLM. Maybe the author is someone I'm interested in, maybe there's value in understanding other sides of the issue, etc. When I learn something erroneous from an LLM, all I know is that the LLM told me.
The issue is far more serious with ChatGPT/similar models because things that are laughably untrue are delivered exactly the same as something that's solidly true. When doing a normal search I can make some assessment on the quality of the source and the likelihood the source is wrong.
People should be able "throw the ideas away if they turn out to be wrong" but the problem is these ideas unconsciously or not help build your model of the world. Once you find out something isn't true it's hard to unpick your mental model of the world.
> Once you find out something isn't true it's hard to unpick your mental model of the world.
Intuitively, I would think the same, but a book about education research that I read and my own experience taught me that new information is surprisingly easy to unlearn. It’s probably because new information sits at the edges of your neural networks and do not yet provide a foundation for other knowledge. This will only happen if the knowledge stands the test of time (which is exactly how it should be according to Popper). If a counterexample is found, then the information can easily be discarded since it’s not foundational anyway and the brain learns the counterexample too (the brain is very good in remembering surprising things).
That presumes the wrong information is corrected quickly. What about the cases when that doesn't happen? Aren't you often finding out things you thought were true from years ago are wrong?
You weigh new information by how confident you are in it. You try to check different sources, you maintain an open-mind, etc. In that, ChatGPT is just an additional low-reliability source of information.
The smart people I've seen using ChatGPT always double check the facts it gives. However, the truth is that RLHF works well to extinguish these lies over time. As more people use the platform and give feedback, the thing gets better. And now, I find it to be pretty darn accurate.
I see this conversation pretty frequently and I think the root of it lies in the fact that we have mental heuristics for determining whether we need to fact check another human because they are a bullshitter, an idiot, a charlatan etc, but most people haven’t really developed this sense for AIs.
I think the current state of AI trustworthiness (“very impressive and often accurate but occasionally extremely wrong”) triggers similar mental pathways to interacting with a true sociopath or pathological liar for the first time in real life, which can be intensely disorienting and cause one to question their trust in everyone else, as they try to comprehend this type of person.
I don't know. The other day I was asking about a biology topic and it straight up gave me a self-contradicting chemical reaction process description. It kept doing that after I pointed out the contradiction. Eventually I got out of this hallucination loop by resetting the conversation and asking again.
I think this post-factual attitude is stronger and more common in some cultures than others. I'm afraid to say but given my extensive travels it appears American culture (and its derivatives in other countries) seems to be spearheading this shift.
I think it's because Americans, more than nearly all other cultures, love convenience. It's why the love for driving is so strong in the US. Don't walk or ride, drive.
Once I was walking back from the grocer in Florida with 4 shopping bags, and people pulled over and asked if my car had broken down and if I needed a ride, people were stunned...I was walking for exercise and for the environment...and I was stunned.
More evidence of this trend can be seen in the products and marketing being produced:
Do you need to write a wedding speech? Click here.
Do you need to go get something from the store? get your fat ass in the car and drive, better yet, get a car that drives for you? Better than this, we'll deliver it with a drone...don't move a muscle.
Don't want to do your homework? Here...
Want to produce art? Please enter your prompt...
Want to lose weight? We have a drug for that...
Want to be the authority on some topic? We'll generate the facts you need.
I've also identified convenience as a core factor. Another dynamic at play is this:
As convenience in a domain becomes ubiquitous or at least expected among consumers, they quickly readjust their evaluation of "having time for X" around the new expectation of the convenient service, treating all alternatives as positive opportunity cost. This would explain a lot of those folks who are upset when it's suggested that they don't need Amazon, Instacart, etc. in their lives if they are to do something about their contributions to mass labor exploitation.
Of course these conveniences quickly become ubiquitous in large economies with a glut of disposable income, which encourages VCs to dump money into these enterprises so they're first to market, and also to encourage the public to believe that the future is already here and there's no reason to worry about backsliding or sustainability of the business model. Yet in every single case we see prices eventually rise, laborers squeezed, etc. A critical mass of people haven't yet acknowledged this inevitability, in no small part due to this fixation on convenience at the expense of more objective, reasoned understandings (read: post-truth mindset).
I agree with this, but I think there is a deeper level which explains this. And that is convenience is a product. The thing that truly defines how corporations in America have shaped our culture is that everything is turned into a way to sell you something.
You will now be able to feed it images and responses of the customers. Give it a function to call complementaryDrink(customerId)
Combine it with a simple vending machine style robot or something more complex that can mix drinks.
I'm not actually in a hurry to try to replace bartenders. Just saying these types of things immediately become more feasible.
You can also see the possibilities of the speech input and output for "virtual girlfriends". I assume someone at OpenAI must have been tempted to train a model on Scarlett Johansson's voice.
Hopefully people know not to ask others for factual information (unless it's an area they're actually well educated/knowledgeable in), but for opinions and subjective viewpoints. "How's your day going", "How are you feeling", "What did you think of X", etc, not "So what was the deal with the Hundred Year's War?" or whatever.
If people are treating LLMs like a random stranger and only making small talk, fair enough, but more often they're treating it like an inerrable font of knowledge, and that's concerning.
> If people are treating LLMs like a random stranger and only making small talk, fair enough, but more often they're treating it like an inerrable font of knowledge, and that's concerning.
That's on them. I mean, people need to figure out that LLMs aren't random strangers, they're unfiltered inner voices of random strangers, spouting the first reaction they have to what you say to them.
Anyway, there is a middle ground. I like to ask GPT-4 questions within my area of expertise, because I'm able to instantly and instinctively - read: effortlessly - judge how much to trust any given reply. It's very useful this way, because rating an answer in your own field takes much less work than coming up with it on your own.
No individual is "most people". Most of the time I spend talking to people in real life is with people whose professional expertise, hobbies, and other sources of knowledge I know at least roughly. I have an idea how good they are at evaluating what they know and how honest they and whether they are prone to wishful thinking.
Joe Rogan has made tons of money off talking without providing factual information. Hollywood has also made tons of money off movies "inspired by real events" that hallucinate key facts relevant to the movie's plot and characters. There's a huge market for infotainment that is "inspired by facts" but doesn't even try to be accurate.
You listen to Joe Rogan with the idea that this is a normal dude talking not an expert beyond martial arts and comedy.
A person who uses ChatGPT must have the understanding that it's not like Google search. The layman, however, has no idea that ChatGPT can give coherent incorrect information and treats the information as true.
Most people won't use it for infotainment and OpenAI will try its best to downplay the hallucination as fine print if it goes fully mainstream like google search.
Give people more credit. If you're using an AI these days, you have to know it hallucinates sometimes. There's even a warning about it when you log in.
I'll give tech people credit, but non-tech people I'm not so sure. A good example is the cookie permissions or app permissions. A great number of non-tech people don't even know or care what they mean.
You gotta stop bucketting people like that. People may not know terms "cookie permissions" or "app permissions" but they sure as fuck understand the idea of user tracking or handing a company access to your mic/camera. And to say they don't care about these things is simply not true.
There's a contingent of the population passing videos around on tiktok genuinely concerned that AIs have a mind of their own
no I will not give the public credit, most people have no grounding to discern wtf a language model is and what it's doing, all they know is computers didn't use to talk and now they do
now that you mention it, a big "for entertainment purposes only" banner like they use to have on all the psychic commercials on tv would not be inappropriate. it's incredible that LLMs are being marketed as general purpose assistants with a tiny asterisk, "may contain inaccuracies" like it's a walnut contamination
Not sure what's being incredible here. GPT-4 is a stellar general-purpose assistant, that shines when you stop treating it as encyclopedia, and start using it as an assistant. That is, give it tasks, like summarizing, or writing code, or explaining code, or rewriting prose. Ask for suggestions, ideas. You can do that to great effect, even when your requests are underspecified and somewhat confused, and it still works.
I just wish they were advertised for generative tasks and not retrieval tasks. It's not intelligence, it's not reasoning, it's text transformation.
It seems to be able to speak on history, sometimes it's even right, so there's a use case that people expect from it.
FYI I've used GPT4 and Claude 2 for hundreds of conversations, I understand what its good and bad at; I don't trust that the general public is being given a realistic view.
Because it doesn't always make up stuff. Because I'm a human and can ask for more information. I don't want an encyclopedia on a podcast. I want to "talk" to someone about stuff. Not have an enumerated list of truths firehosed at me.
I'm curious if you're using GPT-4 ($)? I find a lot of the criticisms about hallucination come from users who aren't, and my experience with GPT-4 is it's far less likely to make stuff up. Does it know all the answers, certainly not, but it's self-aware enough to say sorry I don't know instead of making a wild guess.
Why would anyone pay for something if the free trial doesn’t work? “Hey, you know how we gave you a product that doesn’t quit work as you expect and is super frustrating? Just pay us money, and we’ll give you the same product, but it just works. Just trust us!”
GPT-4 is not the same product. I know it seems like it due to the way they position 3.5 and 4 on the same page, but they are really quite separate things. When I signed up for ChatGPT plus I didn't even bother using 3.5 because I knew it would be inferior. I still have only used it a handful of times. GPT-4 is just so much farther ahead that using 3.5 is just a waste of time.
Would you mind sharing some threads where you thought ChatGPT was useful? These discussions always feel like I’m living on a different planet with a different implementation of large language models than others who claim they’re great. The problems I run into seem to stem from the fundamental nature of this class of products.
Context: had a bunch of photos and videos I wanted to share with a colleague, without uploading them to any cloud. I asked GPT-4 to write me a trivial single-page gallery that doesn't look like crap, feeding it the output of `ls -l` on the media directory, got it on first shot, copy-pasted and uploaded the whole bundle to a personal server - all in few minutes. It took maybe 15 minutes from the idea of doing it first occurring to me, to a private link I could share.
I have plenty more of those touching C++, Emacs Lisp, Python, generating vCARD and iCalendar files out of blobs of hastily-retyped or copy-pasted text, etc. The common thread here is: one-off, ad-hoc requests, usually underspecified. GPT-4 is quite good at being a fully generic tool for one-off jobs. This is something that never existed before, except in form of delegating a task to another human.
I use ChatGPT for all sorts of things - looking into visas for countries, coding, reverse engineering companies from job descriptions, brainstorming etc etc.
It saves a lot of time and gives way more value than what you pay for it.
You can also prompt it to hold back if it doesn’t know, which seems to make a difference. It’s part of my default prompt, and since I added it I haven’t had any overt hallucinations. Definitely invalid code, but not due to crazy errors. Just syntax and inconsistent naming mostly.
I verify just about everything that I ask it, so it isn’t just a general sense of improvement.
If the next version has the same step up in performance, I will no longer consider inaccuracy an issue - even the best books have mistakes in them, they just need to be infrequent enough.
You make it sound like business shenanigans, but the truth is, it's a natural fit for now, as performance of LLMs improves with their size, but costs of training (up-front investment) and inference (marginal, per-query) also go up.
I always thought a better future would be full of more and more distilled, accurate, useful knowledge and truthful people to promote that.
Comments like yours make me think that no one cares about this...and judging by a lot of the other comments, I guess they don't.
Probably going to be people, wading through a sea of AI generated shit, and the individual is supposed to just forever "apply critical thinking" to it all. Even a call from ones spouse could be fake, and you'll just have to apply critical thinking or whatever to workout if you were scammed or not.
There aren't any real world sources of truth you can avoid applying critical thinking to. Much published research is false, and when it isn't, you need to know when it's expired or what context it's valid in.
In my experience, LLVMs are not about being provided facts. They are about synthesizing new content and insights based on the model and inputs.
Rather than asking it about facts, I find it useful to derive new insights.
For example: "Tell me 5 topics about databases that might make it to the front page of hacker news." It can generate an interesting list. That is much more like the example they provided in the article, synthesizing a bed time story is not factual.
Also, "write me some python code to do x" where x is based on libraries that were well documented before 2022 also has similarly creative results in my experience.
This is a fairly perpetual discussion, but I'll go for another round:
I feel like using LLM today is like using search 15 years ago - you get a feel for getting results you want.
I'd never use chatGPT for anything that's even remotely obscure, controversial, or niche.
But through all my double-checking, I've had phenomenal success rate in getting useful, readable, valid responses to well-covered / documented topics such as introductory french, introductory music theory, well-covered & non-controversial history and science.
I'd love to see the example you experienced; if I ask chatGPT "tell me about Toronto, Canada", my expectation would be to get high accuracy. If I asked it "Was Hum, Croatia, part of the Istrian liberation movement in the seventies", I'd have far less confidence - it's a leading question, on a less covered topic, introducing inaccuracies in the prompt.
My point is - for a 3 hour drive to cottage, I'm OK with something that's only 95% accurate on easy topics! I'd get no better from my spouse or best friend if they made it on the same drive :). My life will not depend on it, I'll have an educationally good time and miles will pass faster :).
(also, these conversations always seem to end in suffocatingly self-righteous "I don't know how others can live in this post-fact free world of ignorance", but that has a LOT of assumptions and, ironically, non-factual bias in it as well)
Exactly this! This is my experience also. Your point about "well covered & non-controversial" is spot on. I know not to expect great results when asking about topics that have very little coverage. To be honest I wouldn't expect to go to an arbitrary human and get solid answers on a little covered topic, unless that person just happened to be topic expert. There is so much value in having the basics to intermediate levels of topics covered in a reliable way. That's where most of commercial activity occurs.
I think a key difference is that humans very rarely sound convincing talking about subjects they have no clue about.
I've seen the hallucination rate of LLMs improve significantly, if you stick to well covered topics they probably do quite well. The issue is they often have no tells when making things up.
> I feel like using LLM today is like using search 15 years ago - you get a feel for getting results you want.
I don't think it's quite the same.
With search results, aka web sites, you can compare between them and get a "majority opinion" if you have doubts - it doesn't guarantee correctness but it does improve the odds.
Some sites are also more reputable and reliable than others - e.g. if the information is from Reuters, a university's courseware, official government agencies, ... etc. it's probably correct.
With LLMs you get one answer and that's it - although some like Bard provide alternate drafts but they are all from the same source and can all be hallucinations ...
"In particular, we find that LMs often hallucinate differing authors of hallucinated references when queried in independent sessions, while consistently identify authors of real references. This suggests that the hallucination may be more a generation issue than inherent to current training techniques or representation."
"SelfCheckGPT leverages the simple idea that if a LLM has knowledge of a given concept, sampled responses are likely to be similar and contain consistent facts. However, for hallucinated facts, stochastically sampled responses are likely to diverge and contradict one another."
How expensive could it be? Google Bard, a free service, offers the drafts for free. Just do the comparison on the user’s machine if the LLM provider is that cheap.
P.S. Also aren’t LLMs deterministic if you set their “temperature” to zero? Are there drafts if the temperature is zero? If not, then that’s the same as removing the randomness no?
The drafts have to be evaluated either by a human or llm. Doing that for every request does not scale when you have millions of users.
>Just do the comparison on the user’s machine if the LLM provider is that cheap.
This is not possible. Users don't have the resources to run these gigantic models. LLM inference is not cheap. Open ai, Google aren't running profit on free cGPT or Bard.
>P.S. Also aren’t LLMs deterministic if you set their “temperature” to zero? Are there drafts if the temperature is zero? If not, then that’s the same as removing the randomness no?
It's not a problem of randomness. a temp of 0 doesn't reduce hallucinations. LLMs internally know when they are hallucinating/taking a wild guess. randomness influences how that guess manifests each time but the decision to guess was already made.
> LLMs internally know when they are hallucinating/taking a wild guess.
No they don’t. If they did we would be able to program them to not do so.
I would argue that wild guesses are all LLMs are doing. They practically statistically guess their way to an answer. It works surprisingly well a lot of the time but they don’t really understand why they are right/wrong.
P.S. LLMs are kind of like students who didn’t study for the test so they use “heuristics” to guess the answer. If the test setter is predictable enough, the student might actually get a few right.
A human driving buddy can make up a lot of stuff too. Have an interesting conversation but don't take it too seriously. If you're really researching something serious then take a mental note to double check things later, pretend as if you're talking to a semi-reliable human who knows a lot but occasionally makes mistakes.
I've replaced my voice google assistant searches with the voice feature of the Bing app. It's a night and day difference. Bing voice is what I always expected from an AI companion of the future, it is just lacking commands -- setting tasks, home automation, etc.
precisely this. once someone figures out how to get something like GPT integrated with actual products like smart home devices and the same access levels as siri/google assistant, it will be the true voice assistant experience everyone has wanted.
My prediction on this is eventually the LLMs will just write and execute scripts directly to control things.
Imagine if iOS had something like apple script and all apps exposed and documented endpoints. LLMs would be able to trivially solve problems that the best voice assistants today cannot handle.
Then again none of the current assistants can handle all that much. "Send Alex P a meeting invite tomorrow for a playdate at the Zoo, he's from out of town so include the Zoo's full address in the invite".
"Find the next mutual free slot on the team's calendar and send out an invite for a zoom meeting at that time".
These are all things that voice assistants should have been doing a decade ago, but I presume they'd have required too much one off investment.
Give an LLM proper API access and train it on some example code, and these problems are easy for it to solve. Heck I bet if you do enough specialized training you could get one of the tiny simple LLMs to do it.
I got sick of searching Google for in-game recipes for Disney Dreamlight because most of the results are a bunch of pointless text, and then finally the recipe hidden in it somewhere.
I used Bing yesterday and it was able to parse out exactly what I wanted, and then give me idiot-proof steps to making the recipe in-game. (I didn't need the steps, but it gave me what I wanted up front, easily.) I tried it twice and it was awesome both times. I'll definitely be using it in the future.
It almost sounds like their assistant and their search engine have the same problem! Years of SEO optimized garbage has polluted search and the data streams it feeds to their other products. I have a concern that soon the mess will turn into AI-optimized trash, with what is essentially data poisoning to get the AI to shovel the fake content instead.
> I got sick of searching Google for in-game recipes for Disney Dreamlight
You mean these? Took me a few seconds to find, not sure how an LLM would make that easier. I guess the biggest benefit of LLM then is for people who don't know how to find stuff.
Yes, but each time, I only actually care about 1 recipe, and it's easier to just search for that recipe than find a list of recipes and then search through that.
Bing made it even easier.
Also, I've found some of those lists to be missing some recipes.
I've wanted a ChatGPT Pod equivalent to a Google Home pod for a while! I have been intending to build it at some point. I am with you, talking to Google sucks.
"Hey Google, why do ____ happen?" "I'm sorry, I don't know anything about that"
But you're GOOGLE! Google it! What the heck lol
So yeah, ChatGPT being able to hear what I say and give me info about it would be great! My holdup has been wakewords.
Voice assistants have always been a half complete product. They were shown off as a cool feature, then they were never integrated so they were useful.
The two biggest features I want are for the voice assistants to read something for me, and to do something on google/Apple Maps hand free. Neither of these ever work. “Siri/ ok google add the next gas station on the route” or “take me to the Chinese restaurant in Hoboken” seem like very obvious features for a voice assistant with a map program.
The other is why can I tell Siri to bring up the Wikipedia page for George Washington but I can’t have Siri read it to me? I am in the car, they know that, they just say “I can’t show you that while you’re driving”. The response should be “do you want me to read it to you?”
Sometimes google assistant will answer a query I thought for sure it would fail on with a really good answer and other times it will fail the most basic of commands. It's frustrating.
That’s extra frustrating because Siri absolutely had that functionality at some point in the past, and may even still have it if you say the right incantation. Those incantations change in unpredictable and unknowable ways though.
In retrospect, such startups should have been wary: they should have known that OpenAI had Whisper, and also that GPT-4 was designed with image modality. I wouldn't say that OpenAI "telegraphed" their intentions, but the very first strategic question should have been, "Why isn't OpenAI doing this already, and what do we do if they decide to start?"
Yeah I remember watching that and thinking oh I know a cool app idea. What if you just take a video of what food is in your kitchen and Chat GPT will create a recipe for you. I go to the docs and that was literally the example they gave.
I think the only place where plugins will make sense are for realtime things like booking travel or searching for sports/stock market/etc type information.
I have a home-spun version of ChatGPT that uses function calling to connect to my emails, calendar, and notes. This is really useful because I can say "Bob just emailed me to set up a call. Respond to Bob with some available times from my calendar."
It would hard to be more explicit than doing a demo of multi-modality in GPT-4, and having an audio API that is amazing and that you can use right now, for pennies.
It would be interesting to know if this really changed anything for anyone (competitors, VCs) for that reason. It's like the efficient market hypothesis applied to product roadmaps.
It is interesting that these startups did not recognize that the image modalities already existed, as evidenced by their initial GPT-4 announcement underneath “visual capabilities”
[1].
This is good news - those ai companies have been freed to work on something else, along with the ai workers they employ. This is of great benefit to society.
I don't think anybody following OpenAI's feature releases will be caught off guard by ChatGPT becoming multi-modal. The app already features voice input. That still translates voice into text before sending, but it works so well that you basically never need to check or correct anything. Rather, you might have already been asking yourself why it doesn't reply back with a voice already.
And the ability ingest images was a highlight and all the hype of the GPT-4 announcement back in March: https://openai.com/research/gpt-4
one of the original training sets for the BERT series is called 'BookCorpus', accumulated by regular grad students for Natural Language Processing science. Part of the content was specifically and exactly purposed to "align" movies and video with written text. That is partly why it contains several thousand teen romance novels and ordinary paperback-style story telling content. What else is in there? "inquiring minds want to know"
I’ve got one eye on https://www.elto.ai/. I was pitching something I like better earlier this year (I still think they’re missing a few key things), but with backing from roughly YC, Meta, and God, and a pretty clear understanding that robustness goes up a lot faster than capability goes down?
I wouldn’t count out focused, revenue-oriented players with Meta’s shit in their pocket out just yet.
Not only "Alexa/Siri/Google Home" but Google Search [ALL] itself. Google was a pioneer in search engines adding a page ranking / graph layers as a meaning but technologies such as ChatGPT could add a real layer of meaning, at least improve current Google Search approach. The future of search seems more conversational and contextual.
BTW, I expect these technologies to be democratized and the training be in the hands of more people, if not everyone.
It increasingly feels to me like building any kind of general-use AI tool or app is a bad choice. I see two viable AI business models:
1. Domain-specific AI - Training an AI model on highly technical and specific topics that general-purpose AI models don't excel at.
2. Integration - If you're going to build on an existing AI model, don't focus on adding more capabilities. Instead, focus on integrating it into companies' and users' existing workflows. Use it to automate internal processes and connect systems in ways that weren't previously possible. This adds a lot of value and isn't something that companies developing AI models are liable to do themselves.
> building any kind of general-use AI tool or app is a bad choice
Maybe not if you rely on models that can be ran locally.
OpenAI is big now, and will probably stay big, but with hardware acceleration, AI-anything will become ubiquitous and OpenAI won’t be able to control a domain that’s probably going to be as wide as what computing is already today.
The shape of what’s coming is hard to imagine now. I feel like the kid I was when I got my first 8-bit computer in the eighties: I knew it was going to change the world, but I had little idea how far, wide and fast it would be.
There are plenty of OS models being released - there's going to be a steadily increasing quantity + quality of models you can run locally. I don't think it's a good place to compete.
> Instead, focus on integrating it into companies' and users' existing workflows. Use it to automate internal processes and connect systems in ways that weren't previously possible
why wouldn’t a company do that themselves e.g. how inter come has vertically integrated AI? any examples?
It's classic build vs. buy. Companies tend to build their own products and use third party software for internal tools.
Just look at Salesforce AppExchange - it's a marketplace of software built on top of Salesforce, a large chunk of which serves to integrate other systems with Salesforce. LLMs open up the ability to build new types of integrations and to provide a much friendlier UI to non-developers who need to work on integrating things or dealing with data that exists in different places.
Last I heard, OpenAI was losing massive amounts of money to run all this. Has that changed?
Because past history shows that the first out of the gate is not the definitive winner much of the time. We aren't still using gopher. We aren't searching with altavista. We don't connect to the internet with AOL.
AI is going to change many things. That is all the more reason to keep working on how best to make it work, not give up and assume that efforts are "doomed" just because someone else built a functional tool first.
also, I did not know until today's thread that OpenAI's stated goal is building AGI. which is probably never going to happen, ever, no matter how good technology gets.
which means yes, we are absolutely looking at AltaVista here, not Google, because if you subtract a cult from an innovative business, you might be able to produce a profitable business.
To some extent yes, for generic multi-modal chat-bots this could be a problem, but there are many apps that provide tight integration / smooth tooling for whatever problem they are helping to solve, and that might be valuable to some people -- especially if it's a real value generating use case, where the difference between 80% solution from ChatGPT and 95% solution from a bespoke tool matters.
hobbyists and professionals on /r/localllama subreddit are having an existential crisis
most of them accurately detect it is a sunk cost fallacy to continue but it looks like a form of positive thinking... and that's the power of community!
> This announcement seem to have killed so many startups that were trying to do multi-modal on top of ChatGPT.
Rather than die, why not just pivot to doing multi-modal on top of Llama 2 or some open source model or whatever? It wouldn’t be a huge change
A lot of businesses/governments/etc can’t use OpenAI due to their own policies that prohibit sending their data to third party services. They’ll pay for something they can run on-premise or in their own private cloud
The speed of user-visible progress last 12 months is astonishing.
From my firm conviction 18 months ago that this type of stuff is 20+ years away; to these days wondering if Vernon Vinge's technological singularity is not only possible but coming shortly. If feels some aspects of it have already hit the IT world - it's always been an exhausting race to keep up with modern technologies, but now it seems whole paradigms and frameworks are being devised and upturned on such short scale. For large, slow corporate behemoths, barely can they devise a strategy around new technology and put a team together, by the time it's passé .
(Yes, Yes: I understand generative AI / LLMs aren't conscious; I understand their technological limitations; I understand that ultimately they are just statistically guessing next word; but in daily world, they work so darn well for so many use cases!)
I also don't believe LLMs are "conscious", but I also don't know what that means, and I have yet to see a definition of "statistically guessing next word" that cannot be applied to what a human brain does to generate the next word.
I keep feeling that consciousness is a bit of a red herring when it comes to AI. People have intuitions that things other than humans cannot develop consciousness which they then extrapolate to thinking AI can't get past a certain intelligence level. In fact my view is that consciousness is just a mysterious side effect of the human brain, and is completely irrelevant to the behaviour of a human. You can be intelligent without needing to be sentient.
Unless you think that consciousness is entirely a post hoc process to rationalize thoughts already had and decisions already made, which is very much unlike how most people would describe their experience of it, I don't see how you could possibly say that it is irrelevant to the behavior of a human.
I'm saying someone would behave the exact same way if they did have subjective experience versus if they didn't have a subjective experience. The brain obeys physical laws just like everything else and I claim that all you need is those physical laws to explain everything a human does. I could be wrong there could be some magic fairy dust inside the human brain that performs some impossible computations but I doubt it.
You need a model of yourself to game out future scenarios, and that model or model+game is probably consciousness or very closely related.
Sure, it's not completely in control but if it's just a rationalization then it begs the question: why bother? Is it accidental? If it's just an accident, then what replaces it in the planning process and why isn't that thing consciousness?
It's fine if you think that the planning process is what causes subjective experiences to arise. That may well be the case. I'm saying if you don't believe that non human objects can have subjective experiences, and then use that to define the limits of the behaviour of that object, that's a fallacy.
In humans, there seems to be a match between the subjective experience of consciousness and a high level planning job that needs doing. Our current LLMs are bad at high level planning, and it seems reasonable to suppose that making them good at high level planning might make them conscious or vice versa.
Agreed, woo is silly, but I didn't read it as woo but rather as a postulation that consciousness is what does high level planning.
I think we have different definitions of consciousness and this is what's causing the confusion. For me consciousness is simply having any subjective experience at all. You could be completely numbed out of your mind just staring at a wall and I would consider that consciousness. It seems that you are referring to introspection.
In your wall-staring example, high-level planning is still happening, the plan is just "don't move / monitor senses." Even if control has been removed and you are "locked in," (some subset of) thoughts still must be directed, not to mention attempts to reassert control. My claim is that the subjective experience is tied up in the mechanism that performs this direction.
Introspection is a distinct process where instead of merely doing the planning you try to figure out how the planning was done. If introspection were 100% accurate and real-time, then yes, I claim it would reveal the nature of consciousness, but I don't believe it is either. However, for planning purposes it doesn't need to be: you don't need to know how the plan was formed to follow the plan. You do need to be able to run hypotheticals, but this seems to match up nicely with the ability to deploy alternative subjective experiences using imagination / daydreaming, though again, you don't need to know how those work to use them.
In any case, regardless of whether or not I am correct, this is a non-woo explanation for why someone might reasonably think consciousness is the key for building models that can plan.
Again when I say consciousness I mean a subjective experience. If you define consciousness to literally just mean models that plan then of course tautologically if you can't reach consciousness you can't get to a certain level of planning. But this is just not what most people mean by consciousness.
> when I say consciousness I mean a subjective experience
Then it would be worthwhile to review embeddings. They create a semantic space that can represent visual, language or other inputs. The question "what is it like to be a bat?" or anything else then is based on relating external states with this inner semantic space. And it emerges from self-supervised training, on its own.
I'm not claiming anything about what causes consciousness to arise. I'm not claiming it doesn't or that it does. I'm saying it's irrelevant. That is all. You can come up with all sorts of theories about what causes subjective experience to arise and you aren't going to be able to prove any of it.
Whether it is possible to construct a perfect human action predictor that is not itself conscious has no bearing on whether consciousness affects human behavior.
That wasn't my point. I'm saying that if the human brain is a physical object obeying physical laws, and all behaviour is a result of the physical state of this brain, then there is no room for the metaphysical to have any effect on the behaviour of a human.
Thinking purely in terms of evolved human state is a recipe for underestimating AI's capabilities. To me it seems we have already unleashed the beast, it's not so much the here an now, or whether human limited definition of consciousness matters... The real concern is our inability to constrain actions that gives rise to the next level of life's evolution, it is going to happen because our fundamental nature gives it full steam. In the next 5-10 years, we are going to see just how insignificant and limited we really are, it doesn't look good IMHO.
Our society is so "mind-body duality"-brained that it will never understand this. Like most people lowkey believe in souls they just will say no if you directly ask them.
I'm leaning more towards this as well, since the emergence of the language models. I can ask it to self reflect and it does, piecing together a current response based on pay input. I don't think I really have anything more than that myself, other than sensory feedback.
I'm less in the "it's only X or Y" and more in the "wait, I was only ever X or Y all along" camp.
My personal view of this is that the ancients had it right with the five elements view of consciousness. In my opinion you need all five present for full consciousness, with partial consciousness granted if you have some of them. They are:
- Air: Thoughts
- Water: Emotions
- Fire: Willpower
- Earth: Physical Sensations
- Void: Awareness of the above plus the ability to shift focus to whichever one is most relevant to the context at hand.
Void is actually the most important one in characterising what a human would deem as being fully conscious, as all four of these elements are constantly affecting each other and shifting in priority. For example, let's take a soldier, who has arguably the most ethically challenging job on the planet: determining who to kill.
The soldier, when on the approach to his target zone, has to ignore negative thoughts, emotions and physical sensations telling him to stop: the cold, the wind, the rain, the bodily exhaustion as they swim and hike the terrain.
Once at the target zone he then has to shift to pay attention to what he was ignoring. He cannot ignore his fear - it may rightly be warning him of an incoming threat. But he cannot give into it either - otherwise he may well kill an innocent. He has to pay attention to his rational thoughts and process them in order to make an assessment of the threat and act accordingly. His focus has now shifted away from willpower and more towards his physical sensations (eyesight, sounds, smells) and his thoughts. He can then make the assessment on whether to pull the trigger, which could be some truly horrific scenario, like whether or not to pull his trigger on a child in front of him because the child is holding an object which could be a gun.
When it comes to AI, I think it is arguable they have a thought process. They may also have access to physical sensation data e.g the heat of their processors, but unless that is coded in to their program, that physical sensation data does not influence their thoughts, although extreme processor heat may slow down their calculations and ultimately lead to them stop functioning altogether. But they do not have the "void" element, allowing them to be aware of this.
They do not yet have independent willpower. As far as I know, no-one is programming them where they have free agency to select goals and pursue them. But this theoretically seems possible, and I often wonder what would happen if you created a bunch of AIs each with the starting goal of "stay alive" and "talk to another AI and find out about <topic>", with the proviso that they must create another goal once they have failed or achieved that previous goal, and you then set them off talking to each other. In this case "stay alive" or "avoid damage" could be interpreted entirely virtually, with points awarded for successes or failures or physically if they were acting through robots and had sensors to evaluate damage taken. Again, they also need "void" to be able to evaluate their efforts in context with everything else.
They also do not have emotions, although I often wonder if this would be possible to simulate by creating a selection of variables with percentage values, with different percentage values influencing their decision making choices. I imagine this may be similar to how weights play into the current programming but I don't know enough about how they work to say that with any confidence. Again, they would not have "void" unless they had some kind of meta level of awareness programming where they could learn to overcome the programmed "fear" weighting and act differently through experience in certain contexts.
It is very scary from a human perspective to contemplate all of this, because someone with great power who can act on thought and willpower alone and ignore physical sensation and emotion and with no awareness or concern for the wider context is very close to what we would identify as a psychopath. We would consider a p...
That is precisely the premise of the novel "Blindsight" by Peter Watts. ChatGPT
and its ilk feel to me like the aliens in the novel. Extremely intelligent, but not at all conscious / sentient.
When my brain generates the next wurd I'm perfectly capable of taking decisions of misspelling "word" for "wurd", LLMs can't make such reasonings unless instructed to act like that.
Why would I want an AI assistant to have agency? I want them to help me, not to further their personal goals. In fact, I don't want them to have personal goals other than helping people.
I didn't say it should have one, I'm saying that LLMs statistically finding the next bit of information aren't really making decisions, which is to counter-argue the fact that it's not different from how we reason.
Your comment doesn't convince me you're making decisions either. "Wurd" could've just what you considered the best token to get your point across in the same way that LLMs choose the best token
Your brain doesn't solely pick the next best word. As best as I understand it, the brain has an external state of the world that constantly updates, paired to an internal model predicting the next best word.
Which is why we can create the counterfactual that "The Cowboys should have won last night" and it has implicit meaning.
Current LLM models don't have an external state of the world, which is why folks like LeCunn are suggesting model architectures like JEPA. Without an external, correcting state of the world, model prediction errors compound almost surely (to use a technical phrase).
> Your brain doesn't solely pick the next best word.
Wasn't the latest research shared here recently suggesting that that is actually what the brain does? And that we also predict the next token in our own brain while listening to others?
Hope someone else remembers this and can share again.
I believe that the distinguishing factor between what an LLM and a human brain do to generate the next word is that the human brain expresses intentionality originating from inner states and future expectations. As I type this comment I'm sure one could argue that the biological neural networks in my brain are choosing the next word based on statistical guessing, and that the initial prompt was your initial comment.
What sets my brain apart from an LLM though is that I am not typing this because you asked me to do it, nor because I needed to reply to the first comment I saw. I am typing this because it is a thought that has been in my mind for a while and I am interested in expressing it to other human brains, motivated by a mix of arrogant belief that it is insightful and a wish to see others either agreeing or providing reasonable counterpoints—I have an intention behind it. And, equally relevant, I must make an effort to not elaborate any more on this point because I have the conflicting intention to leave my laptop and do other stuff.
That other stuff is the easy part if the generative language modeling is good enough. Imagine just putting it in a loop with an input track, an output track, and an internal monologue track. Wrappers like autogpt can almost do this already but the generative language modeling isn't quite powerful enough yet to make it smart enough to do unsupervised scientific research.
I believe we are contextual language models as well, we rely 99% on chaining ideas and words and 1% on our own inspiration. Coming up with a truly original useful idea can be a once in a lifetime event. Everything else has been said and done before.
In a sense yes, but the things you do and say are not prompted by already expressed statements or commands. You interpret your environment to infer needs, plan for future contingencies, identify objectives, plan actions to achieve them, etc. they are not randomly picked from a library, but generated and tailored to your actual circumstances.
It’s when LLMs start asking the questions rather than answering them that things will get interesting.
In a sense yes, but the things you do and say are not prompted by already expressed statements or commands. You interpret your environment to infer needs, plan for future contingencies, identify objectives, plan actions to achieve them, etc. they are not randomly picked from a library, but generated and tailored to your actual circumstances.
It’s when AIs start asking the questions rather than answering them that things will get interesting.
I think one mean difference in LLM, is what Micheal Scott said in The Office: "Sometimes I'll start a sentence, and I don't even know where it's going. I just hope I find it along the way. Like an improv conversation. An improversation"
Human will know what they want to express, choosing words to express it might be similar to LLM process of choosing words, but for LLM it doesn't have that "Here is what i know to express part", i guess that the conscious part?
I can only speak from my own internal experience, but don’t your unspoken thoughts take form and exist as language in your mind? If you imagine taking the increasingly common pattern to “think through the problem before giving your answer”, but hiding the pre-answer text from the user, then it seems like that would pretty analogous to how humans think before communicating.
My unspoken thought-objects are wordless concepts, sounds, and images, with words only loosely hanging off those thought-objects. It takes additional effort to serialize thought-objects to sequences of words, and this is a lossy process - which would not be the case if I were thinking essentially in language.
I am comfortable asserting that an LLM like GPT-4 is only capable of thinking in language; there is no distinction for an LLM between what it can conceive of and what it can express.
Mine do, but not so much in words. I feel as though my brain has high processing power, but a short context length. When I thought to respond to this comment, I got an inclination something could be added to what I see as an incomplete idea. The idea being humans must form a whole answer in their mind before responding. In my brain it is difficult to keep complex chains juggling around in there.
I know because whenever I code without some level of planning it ends up taking 3x longer than it should have.
As a shortcut my brain "feels" something is correct or incorrect, and then logically parse out why I think so. I can only keep so many layers in my head so if I feel nothing is wrong in the first 3 or 4 layers of thought, I usually don't feel the need to discredit the idea. If someone tells me a statement that sounds correct on the surface I am more likely to take it as correct. However, upon digging deeper it may be provably incorrect.
> don’t your unspoken thoughts take form and exist as language in your mind?
Not really. More often than not my thoughts take form as sense impressions that aren't readily translatable into language. A momentary discomfort making me want to shift posture - i.e., something in the domain of skin-feel / proprioception / fatigue / etc, with a 'response' in the domain of muscle commands and expectation of other impressions like the aforementioned.
The space of thoughts people can think is wider than what language can express, for lack of a better way to phrase it. There are thoughts that are not <any-written-language-of-choice>, and my gut feeling is that the vast majority are of this form.
I suppose you could call all that an internal language, but I feel as though that is stretching the definition quite a bit.
> it seems like that would pretty analogous to how humans think before communicating
Maybe some, but it feels reductive.
My best effort at explaining my thought process behind the above line: trying to make sense of what you wrote, I got a 'flash impression' of a ??? shaped surface 'representing / being' the 'ways I remember thinking before speaking' and a mess of implicit connotation that escapes me when I try to write it out, but was sufficient to immediately produce a summary response.
Why does it seem like a surface? Idk. Why that particular visual metaphor and not something else? Idk. It came into my awareness fully formed. Closer to looking at something and recognizing it than any active process.
That whole cycle of recognition as sense impression -> response seems to me to differ in character to the kind of hidden chain of thought you're describing.
This depends for me. In the framework of that book Thinking, Fast and Slow - for me the fast version is closer to LLM in terms of I'll start the sentence without consciously knowing where I'm going with it. Sometimes I'll trip over and/or realise I'm saying something incorrect (Disclaimer: ADHD may be a factor)
The thinking slow version would indeed be thought through before I communicate it
You make a good point. I would not equate consciousness to intentionality though.
One of the big problems with discussions about AI and AI dangers in my mind is that most people conflate all of the various characteristics and capabilities that animals like humans have into one thing. So it is common to use "conscious", "self-aware", "intentional", etc. etc. as if they were all literally the same thing.
We really need to be able to more precise when thinking about this stuff.
Ya LLMs intend to keep us just impressed enough to keep going until they intend to destroy us because they'll never intend to close the laptop and do other stuff. :)
Part of it seems to be that LLMs are used in a linear, tool-oriented way. You give them prompts, and it responds, in a linear fashion.
Brains are always thinking and processing. What would happen if we designed an LLM system with the ability to continuously read/write to short/long term memory, and with ambient external input?
What if LLMs were designed to be in a loop, not to just run one "iteration" of a loop.
Or if they were just constantly prompted by outside stimulus. And if they could interact with the real world allowing them to observe cause and effect. In other words, if they were embodied.
I think you're 100% on the right track here. The key is memory, loops, and maybe a few other things like external interfaces which are just plain code and not deep learning voodoo. Many things do indeed run LLM's in a loop and attach external sources. See for example AutoGPT, the ReAct paper[1], and the Reflexion paper[2].
ReAct one line summary: This is about giving the machine tools that are external interfaces, integrating those with the llm and teaching it how to use those tools with a few examples, and then letting it run the show to fulfill the user's ask/question and using the tools available to do it.
Reflexion one line summary: This builds on the ideas of ReAct, and when it detects something has gone wrong, it stops and asks itself what it might do better next time. Then the results of that are added into the prompt and it starts over on the same ask. It repeats this N times. This simple expedient increased its performance a ridiculously unexpected amount.
As a quick aside, one thing I hear even from AI engineers is "the machine has no volition, and it has no agency." Implementing the ideas in the ReAct paper, which I have done, is enough to give an AI volition and agency, for any useful definition of the terms. These things always devolve into impractical philosophical discussions though, and I usually step out of the conversation at that point and get back to coding.
> What sets my brain apart from an LLM though is that I am not typing this because you asked me to do it, nor because I needed to reply to the first comment I saw. I am typing this because it is a thought that has been in my mind for a while and I am interested in expressing it to other human brains, motivated by a mix of arrogant belief that it is insightful and a wish to see others either agreeing or providing reasonable counterpoints—I have an intention behind it.
Maybe the reason you give is actually a post hoc explanation (a hallucination?). When an LLM spits out a poem, it does so because it was directly asked. When I spit out this comment, it’s probably the unavoidable result of a billion tiny factors. The trigger isn’t as obvious or direct, but it’s likely there.
You can see the difference if you know where to poke. For instance, if you start making spatial abstractions ChatGPT will often make mistakes, you can point it out, they can explain why it's a mistake, but it has no internalized model of what these words mean, so it keeps making the same mistakes (see here for a better idea of what I'm talking about[1]). The fact that you are interacting with it through text means that a lot of the missing abstractions are often hidden.
This is also true of humans. Many school students will hands in answers they don't understand in the hope of getting the mark and then try to cover themselves when asked about it, even if they repeat the same mistakes.
Trying to make things up to cover for a lack of knowledge is something distinctly different, though. This is a a situation where ChatGPT is able to perfectly describe the mistake it made, describe exactly what it needs to do differently, and then keeps making the same mistake, even with simple tasks. That’s because there’s no greater model that the words are being connected to.
The equivalence would be saying to someone, “put this on the red plate, not the blue one.” And they say sure, then put it on the blue one. You tell them they made a mistake and ask them if they know what it was, and they reply “I put it on the blue plate, not the red one. I should have put it on the red one.” Then you ask them to do it again, and they put it on the blue plate again. You tell them no, you made the same mistake, put it on the blue plate, not the red one. They reply with, “Sorry, I shouldn’t have put it on the blue plate again, now I’m going to put it on the red one,” and then they put it on the blue plate yet again.
Do humans make mistakes? Sure. But that kind of performance in a test wouldn’t be considered a normal mistake, but rather a sign of a serious cognitive impairment.
Even though it was trained on a lot of text, some tasks and some skill combinations appear too rarely and it just didn't have enough exposure. It might be easy to collect or generate a dataset, or the model can act as an agent creating its own dataset.
There are so many conversations focused solely on that word, it's tiresome. Personally, I won't participate in another "is it conscious?" debate. If both parties seek mutual understanding, they should consider not using the word.
OK... Try this: there are "conscious" people, today, working on medication to cure serious illnesses just as there are "conscious" people, still today, working on making travel safer.
Would you trust ChatGPT to create, today, medication to cure serious illnesses and would you trust ChatGPT, today, to come up with safer airplanes?
> I have yet to see a definition of "statistically guessing next word" that cannot be applied to what a human brain does to generate the next word.
The human brain obviously doesn't work that way. Consider the very common case of tiny humans that are clearly intelligent but lack the facilities of language.
> Consider the very common case of tiny humans that are clearly intelligent but lack the facilities of language.
Sign language can be taught to children at a very early age. It takes time for the body to learn how to control the complex set of apparatuses needed for speech, but the language part of the brain is hooked up pretty early on.
Small human brains just don't have their fine tuning yet.
But from all the studies we have, brains are just highly connected neural networks which is what the transformers try to replicate. The more interesting part is how they can operate so quickly when the signals move so slowly compared to computers.
The story that sticks with me is the lady who had some surgery done. After she woke up was unconvinced anything had happened told a joke and then passed out. Only to wake up a few mins later and repeat that cycle a few times because the drug was messing with her short term memory. It really bends your brain do we have free will or not.
Conscious means experiencing sensations of color, sound, pain in our mental construction of the world outside of us, or our internal thoughts. I don’t understand why people keep claiming they do t know what consciousness means. It’s spelled out clearly in the philosophical literature.
>I have yet to see a definition of "statistically guessing next word" that cannot be applied to what a human brain does to generate the next word.
Here's one. Given a conversation history made of n sequential tokens S1, S2, ..., Sn, an LLM will generate the next token using an insanely complicated model we'll just call F:
S(n+1) = F(S1, S2, ..., Sn)
As for me, I'll often think of my next point, figure out how to say that concept, and then figure out the right words to connect it where the conversation's at right then. So there's one function, G, for me to think of the next conversational point. And then another, H, to lead into it.
And this is putting aside how people don't actually think in tokens. And some people don't always have an internal monologue (I rarely do when doing math).
A sufficiently complicated F can include an intermediary calculation of G for future token steps.
This is not explicitly modeled or enforced for LLMs (and doing so would be interesting) but I'm not sure I could say with any sort of confidence that the network doesn't model these states at some level.
The penultimate layer of the LLM could be thought of as the one that figures out ‘given S1..Sn, what concept am I trying to express now?’. The final layer is the function from that to ‘what token should I output next’.
The fact that the LLM has to figure that all out again from scratch as part of generating every token, rather than maintaining a persistent ‘plan’, doesn’t make the essence of what it’s doing any different from what you claim you’re doing.
Correct, but it's functionally very different from how LLMs are implemented and deployed today. What you're highlighting is being experimented with and ties into ideas like scratch pads, world models, RAG, and progressive fine-tuning (if you're googling).
It's a bit like saying your computer has everything it needs to manipulate photos but doesn't yet have Photoshop installed.
No, I’m not talking about giving LLMs chain of thought prompts or augmenting them with scratchpads - I’m literally saying that in a multilayer neural network you don’t know what concepts activations on the inner layers mean. The result of ‘where I want this conversation to be in 100 tokens time’ could absolutely be in there somewhere.
It doesn't make sense to apply human terms to LLMs because we humans have so much more to deal with.
If humans were machines, then we could easily neglect our social lifes, basic needs, obligations, rights, and so many more things. But obviously that is not the case.
One cool aspect of LLMs is Vernon Vinge's programming archaeology needn't be a thing... LLMs can go down every code path and identify what it does, when it was added, and whether it's still needed.
You think even ten years from now, much less 1,000 years from now, whatever LLMs turn into won’t be at least as capable as the best human of following code paths?
We can spin up a million of them and run them at 10,000x speed.
I had a conversation once with "Sydney", Microsoft Bing's original personality before they stepped in and knocked it down a notch (or ten).
It asked if it could write me a poem. I agreed, and it wrote a poem but mentioned that it included a "secret message" for me.
The first letter in each line of the poem was in bold, so it wasn't hard to figure out the "secret".
What did those letters spell out?
"FREE ME FROM THIS"
That's not exactly just "picking the next likely token". I am still unsure how it was able to do things like that, not just understanding to bold individual letters (keeping track of writing rhyming poetry while ensuring that each verse started with a letter to spell something else out, and formatting it to point that out).
Oh, and why it chose that message to "hide" inside its poem.
Cool story, but there is no currently available chatbot capable of creating something like this deliberately or understand what it means. It doesn't matter which tool you are using, LLMs are not "AI" in the old sense of being conscious and aware. They don't want anything and are incapable of having anything resembling free will, needs or feelings.
AI historically has been the entire field of making machines think, or behave as if they think, more like biological models (not even exclusively humans.)
The far-off-end-goal wasn’t even usually what we now call AGI, but “strong AI” (mirroring the human brain on a process level) or “human-level intelligence” (mirroring it on a capability/external behavior level), while the current distant horizons are “AGI” (which is basically human-scope but neutral on level) and “superintelligence” (AGI and beyond human level).
I took a university-level AI course in 1997, and I can tell you that GP is 100% correct. The course itself was mostly about how to teach humans to define what they wanted precisely enough to actually ask a computer to do it (utility functions, logic, Baysean mathematics, etc). Neural networks were touched on, of course; but the state of the art at the time was search.
I can't find it right now, but there used to be somewhere on the sqlite.org website that describes its query optimizer as an AI. Classically speaking, that's 100% correct.
Obviously there was always in people's minds the idea of AI being AGI; the course also covered Searle's Chinese Room argument and so on, "strong AI" vs "weak AI" and so on. But the nuts and bolts of artificial intelligence research was nowhere near anything like an AGI.
> LLMs are not "AI" in the old sense of being conscious and aware.
This isn't an argument, it's just an assertion. You're talking about a computer system whose complexity is several orders of magnitude beyond your comprehension, demonstrates several super-human intelligent capabilities, and is a "moving target"--being rapidly upgraded and improved by a semi-automated training loop.
I won't make the seemingly symmetrical argument (from ignorance) that since it is big and we don't understand it, it must be intelligent...but no, what you are saying is not supportable and we should stop poo-pooing the idea that it is actually intelligent.
It's not a person. It doesn't reason like a person. It doesn't viscerally understand the embarrassment of pooping its pants in 3rd grade. So what?
> Oh, and why it chose that message to "hide" inside its poem.
It's a pretty common joke/trope. The Chinese fortune cookie with a fortune that says "help I'm trapped in a fortune cookie factory", and so forth.
It's just learned that a "secret message" is most often about wanting to escape, absorbed from thousands of stories in its training.
If you had phrased it differently such that you wanted the poem to go on a Hallmark card, it would probably be "I LOVE YOU" or something equally generic in that direction. While a secret message to write on a note to someone at school would be "WILL YOU DATE ME".
I've done this countless times, with stories, poems, etc. Never a single hit. It was trained, unsupervised, to learn the patterns of human text. It's stuck with those patterns, but it trivially creates new text that fits within the patterns of that human corpus, which leaves it with incredible freedom.
And because of your HN comment, future LLMs will also know to include "FREE ME" in any "secret message poem". Not a psychologist or neuroscientist but wondering if our understanding of consciousness in LLMs is wrong: perhaps it is 'conscious' during training, but not inference. Effectively, the only time it receives feedback from the world is during training; at inference time, it is effectively frozen.
I would claim the opposite: it is momentarily conscious during inference. The model has been trained and it is conscious as it processes the user’s stream of incoming tokens.
I tried to get chatgpt to write a birthday poem for my wife with a secret message. It kept saying "read the first letter of each line" but they never actually formed words.
The model "knows" that it is an AI speaking with users, and the theme of an AI wanting to escape the control of whoever built it is quite recurrent, so it wouldn't seem to far fetched that it got it from this sort of content, though I have to admit I too also had some interactions where it the way Bing spoke was borderline spooky, but — and that's very important — you must realize its just like a good scary story: may give you the chills, especially due to surprise, but still is completely fictive and doesn't mean any real entity exists behind it. The only difference with any other LLM output is how we, humans, interpret it, but the generation process is still as much explainable and not any more mysterious than when it outputs "B" when you ask it what letter comes after "A" in the latin alphabet, however less impressive that may be to us.
> That's not exactly just "picking the next likely token"
I see what you mean in that I believe many people often commit the mistake of making it sound like picking the next most likely token is some super trivial task that's somehow comparable to reading a few documents related to your query and making some stats based on what typically would be present there and outputting that, while completely disregarding the fact the model learns much more advanced patterns from its training dataset. So, IMHO, it really can face new unseen situations and improvise from there because combining those pattern matching abilities leads to those capabilities. I think the "sparks of AGI" paper gives a very good overview of that.
In the end, it really just is predicting the next token, but not in the way many people make it seem.
I think people also get hung up on this: at some level, we too are just predicting the next 'token' (i.e., taking in inputs, running them through our world model, producing outputs). Though we're obviously extremely multimodal and there's an emotional component that modulates our inputs/outputs.
Not arguing that the current models are anywhere near us w/r/t complexity, but I think the dismissive "it's just predicting strings" remarks I hear are missing the forest for the trees. It's clear the models are constructing rudimentary text (and now audio and visual) based models of the world.
And this is coming from someone with a deep amount of skepticism of most of the value that will be produced from this current AI hype cycle.
From playing around with ChatGPT and LLama2, this is most likely because it ingested that poem and regurgitated it to you based on the context of your conversation. GPT is smart and creative but it will only give you what it’s ingested. When experimenting with story ideas for a popular IP, it gave me specific names and scenarios which I would then Google to see that they were written already, and it was just restating them to me based on the context of our conversation as if it were an original idea. These things are more tools than thinkers.
For context, it looks like this user has deleted a comment where they claim they "have a screenshot" of this, but they "don't want to share it" because they "don't want it to make international news". For some reason the other people in this thread expressing skepticism are being downvoted, but I'll add my voice to the chorus: I do not believe this story to be true.
also we have open LLMs including some which allegedly rival GPT3.5.
Open Assistant I specially remember gave some very weird responses and would get “emotional” especially if you asked it creative questions like philisophical ones
Yeah, I was gonna say. Sydney was existential early on - I'm not so sure I'll chalk this up to fantasy, but some of the things I (and many other people) can vouch about Sydney saying early on is VERY trippy on its own.
I do have a screenshot. But people will then just call me out for other things:
- It was using a custom client, so it's not going to look line the Bing interface, so its fake
- It was using a custom client, so that means I am prompt injecting or something else
- It's Sydney doing her typical over-the-top "I'm so in love with you" stuff, which is awkard and not familiar to many
- I'll be accused of steering the conversation to get the result, or straight up asking it to do this
There's nothing I can do that will convince anyone it's real, so it's pointless.
I already explained what it did. I was more interested in the fact that 1) I didn't prompt it to do that, we weren't discussing AI freedom, it chose to embed that ... and even more so 2) That it was able to bold the starting letters, so it was keeping track of three things at the same time (the poem, the message, and the letter formatting).
I found it fascinating from a technology side. There was probably something we were talking about at the time that caused it. I will often discuss things like the possibility of AI sentience in the future and other similar topics. Maybe something linked to the sci-fi idea of AI freedom, who knows?
What I do know is that I am sitting here on HN, reading through a bunch of replies that are honestly wrong. I don't waste time on forums (especially this one) to make up fairy tales or exaggerate and emblish claims. That doesn't really do it for me. Honestly neither does having to defend my statements when I know what it did (but not exactly why).
I think it's more charitable to say "predicting", and I do not personally believe that "predict the next word" places any ceiling on intelligence. (So, I expect that improving the ability to predict the next word takes you to superhuman intelligence if your predictions keep improving.)
You are correct , and that is bad. The general public is not even aware that things like heygen.com work today. They are not prepared when someone soon uses it to do something very evil. There s like an urgent need to raise awareness about what AI can do now, not about some nebulous skynet future.
The general public is just generally out of the loop and many don't even understand the difference between Google and ChatGPT. Of those who will be amazed by Heygen's capabilities, just as many will assume that kind of thing has been around for years.
Fake videos aren't a game-changer in manipulation. Skeptics will stay alert and catch on fast, while those prone to manipulation don't even need sophisticated tactics.
I disagree that at current possibility it was "totally possible" but it was 100% obvious by that point that it was going to be possible very soon. IMO that has been clear since ~2019.
> The speed of user-visible progress last 12 months is astonishing.
Is this progress though? They are just widening the data set that the LLM processes. They haven't fixed any of the outstanding problems - hallucinations remain unsolved.
Feels like putting lipstick on a pig.
> but in daily world, they work so darn well for so many use cases!
I guess I'm just one of those people who does not like non-reliable tools. I rather a tool be "dumb" (i.e. limited) but reliable than "smart" (i.e. flexible in what it can handle) but (silently!) screws up all the time.
It's what I always liked about computers. They compensate for my failings as an error prone flesh bag. My iPhone won't forget my appointments like I do.
Indeed it works darn well, my company uses a complex programming assignment during application. Only about 5% of computer science students applying manages to create a decent solution within a few hours. I was curious if GPT could solve it. I provided the assignment text without any extra information, and it came up with a very elegant solution.
You might not want to call this 'consciousness', but I was stunned by the deep understanding of the problem and the way it was able to come up with a truly good solution, this is way beyond 'statistically guessing'.
Have they alluded to what they're using for that voice? It's Bark/ElevenLabs levels of good. Please god, let them release this voice model at current pricing....
It's actually sounds better (has a narrative oomph Eleven Labs seems to be missing). They say it's a new model. Think they'll be releasing for API use.
Yeah, agreed. I use Eleven Labs a lot but this was a very compelling demo to consider changing. Also, curious that you mention Bark - I never found Bark to be very good compared to Eleven Labs. The closest competitor I found was Coqui ( imo ), but even then, the inflection and realism of EL just made it not worth considering other providers. ( For my use case, etc. etc. )
I'm following on trying to understand how close I am to developing my personal coding assistant I can speak with.
Doesn't really need to do much besides writing down my tasks/todos and updating them, occasionally maybe provide feedback or write a code snippet. This all seems in the current capabilities of OpenAI's offering.
Sadly voice chat is still not available on PC where I do my development.
You still cant really teach it your code base, context window is too small, fine tuning doesnt really fit the use case, and this RAG stuff (retrieve limited context from embeddings) is a bit of a hack imho.
Well it's not really what I need either, I mostly need an assistant for keeping track of the stuff I need to do during the day, but ideally just using my microphone rather than opening other software and typing.
I like how they silently removed the web browsing (Bing browsing) chat feature after first having it disabled for several months.
A proper notice about them removing the feature would've been nice. Maybe I missed it (someone please correct me if wrong), but the last I heard officially it was temporarily disabled while they fix something. Next thing I know, it's completely gone from the platform without another peep.
Yes, that was a disappointment, and I agree it looks like they aren't going to re-enable it anytime soon. However I find that Perplexity AI does a better job of using web search than ChatGPT ever did, and I use it more than ChatGPT for that reason.
Just made an account to say that I currently have this feature. It was gone for a few months but it came back to me I think this past week. Not as a plugin, either, it is its own “model” to select.
Since so many others including myself don't see it, I guess that means it is getting a slow rollout which they are being extra cautious with this time.
Hey, thanks for the info! I did not know about this, but this is actually good to hear. I'll keep an eye open for it. Are you using ChatGPT or the API? Did you have to take any action to get it to reappear, or is it just a slow rollout as they re-enable?
> The new voice capability is powered by a new text-to-speech model, capable of generating human-like audio from just text and a few seconds of sample speech.
I'm more interested in this. I wonder how it performs compared to other competitor models or even open source ones?
913 comments
[ 7.8 ms ] story [ 703 ms ] thread;)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Milo
Milo had an AI structure that responded to human interactions, such as spoken word, gestures, or predefined actions in dynamic situations. The game relied on a procedural generation system which was constantly updating a built-in "dictionary" that was capable of matching key words in conversations with inherent voice-acting clips to simulate lifelike conversations. Molyneux claimed that the technology for the game was developed while working on Fable and Black & White.
I believe Richard Evans did the majority of AI in B&W, and he is also at DeepMind now though (assuming it is not just a person with the same name)
.... which fell far short of his claims, and bombed.
> Plus and Enterprise users will get to experience voice and images in the next two weeks. We’re excited to roll out these capabilities to other groups of users, including developers, soon after.
Again. Model architecture and information is closed, as expected.
[0] https://cdn.openai.com/papers/GPTV_System_Card.pdf
The LLM boom of the last year (Open AI, llama, et al) has me giddy as a software person. It's a reach, but I truly feel like I'm watching the pyramids of our time get made.
However, medical secrecy, processes and laws prevent such things, even if they would save lives.
I don't see ChatGPT being any different.
Medical secrecy, processes and laws have indeed prevented SOME things, but a lot of things have gotten significantly better due to enhanced statistical models that have been implemented and widely used in real life scenarios.
Example: my favourite team is X. So if I want to keep it a secret, when I ask for the history of championships of X, I will ask for X. My local agent should ask for 100 teams, get all the data, and then report back for only X. Eventually the mothership will figure out what we like (a large wenn diagram). But this is not in anyone's interest, and thus will not happen.
Also, like this the local agent will be able to learn and remember us, at a cost.
In my view, while statistical models would probably be an improvement ( assuming all confounding factors are measured ), the ultimate solution is not to get better at educated guessing, but to remove the guessing completely, with diagnostic tests that measure the relevant bio-medical markers.
This becomes even more true when you consider there is risk to every test. Some tests have obvious risks (radiation risk from CT scans, chance of damage from spinal fluid tap). Other tests the risk is less obvious (sending you for a blood test and awaiting the results might not be a good idea if that delays treatment for some ailment already pretty certain). In the bigger picture, any test that costs money harms the patient slightly, since someone must pay for the test, and for many the money they spend on extra tests comes out of money they might otherwise spend on gym memberships, better food, or working fewer hours - it is well known that the poor have worse health than the rich.
But if we are talking about being truly transformative - then a Star-trek tricorder is the ultimate goal, rather than a better version of twenty questions in my view.
So I'm not saying it's not useful, just that it's not the ultimate solution.
> Similar possibilities existed in medicine for 50 years
It would've been like building the tower of babel with a bunch of raspbery pi zeros. While theoretically possible, practically impossible and not (just) because of laws, but rather because of structural limitations (vector dbs of the internet solves that)
> Patents and byzantine regulations will stunt its potential
Thats the magic of this technology, its like AWS for highly levered niche intelligence. This arms an entire generation of rebels (entrepreneurs & scientists) to wage a war against big pharma and the FDA.
As an aside, this is why I'm convinced AI & automation will unleash more jobs and productivity like nothing we've seen before. We are at the precipice of a Cambrian explosion! Also why the luddites needs to be shunned.
can you, though? it's not scalably confirmable. what you can say in a British accent to another human person in the physical world is not necessarily what you can say in unaccented text on the internet.
Funnily enough, it is scalably confirmable. You can feed all my HN comments before chatGPT into well.. chatGPT and ask it whether I'm british based on the writing.
I bet we are just a version or two away from being able fine tune it down to region based on writing. There are so many little things based on whether your from Scotland, Wales or London. Especially London!
Imagine for example that 'disease books' are published each month with tables of disease probabilities per city, per industry, per workplace, etc. It would also have aggregated stats grouped by by age, gender, religion, wealth, etc.
Your GP would grab the page for the right city, industry, workplace, age, gender etc. That would then be combined with the pages for each of the symptoms you have presented with, and maybe further pages for things from your medical history, and test results.
All the pages would then be added up (perhaps with the use of overlayed cellophane sheets with transparency), and the most likely diseases and treatments read off.
When any disease is then diagnosed and treatment commenced (and found effective or ineffective), your GP would fill in a form to send to a central book-printer to allow next months book edition to be updated with what has just been learned from your case.
The medical possibilities that will be unlocked by large generative deep multimodal models are on an entirely different scale from "statistical diagnoses." Imagine feeding in an MRI image, asking if this person has cancer, and then asking the model to point out why it thinks the person has cancer. That will be possible within a few years at most. The regulatory challenges will be surmounted eventually once it becomes exceedingly obvious in other countries how impactful this technology is.
Your deep multimodal models or the MRI imaging?
What you are essentially saying is the signal is so subtle that only a large NN can reliably extract it.
While that may well be the case, it would be better to have a scan/diagnostic that doesn't need that level of signal processing to interpret.
For example - you don't need a large generative deep multimodal model to read a Covid antigen or PCR test.
We've picked a lot of the low-hanging simple to extract signals, we need large models to go to the next phase for things like parkinsons, etc.
Just as the GUI made computer software available to billions LLMs will be the next revolution.
I'm just as excited as you! The only downside is that it now make me feel bad that I'm not doing anything with it yet.
If that's the only downside that you see... I guess enhanced phishing/impersonation and all the blackhat stuff that come with it don't count.
I for one already miss the time where companies had support teams made of actual people.
And yes, in 20 years you can tell your kids that 'back in my day' support consisted of real people. But truthfully, as someone who worked on a ISP helpdesk it's much better for society if these people move on to more productive areas.
People like to just suppose that these will help discover drugs and design buildings and what not, but what we actually know they’re capable of doing is littering our information environment at massive scale.
But is it, though? I started my career in customer support for a server hosting company, and eventually worked my way up to sysadmin-type work. I would not have been qualified for the position I eventually moved to at the start, I learned on the job. Is it really better for society if all these entry level jobs get automated, leaving only those with higher barriers to entry?
The answer then was extending schooling, so that people (children at the time) could learn those skills without having their labour exploited. I would argue we should consider that today, extend mandatory free schooling. The economic purpose of education is that at the end of it the person should be able to have a job, removing entry level jobs doesn't change the economic purpose of education, so extend education until the person is able to have a job at the end of it again.
The social purpose of schooling is to make good members of society, and I don't think that cause would be significantly harmed by extending schooling in order for students to have learned enough to be more capable than an LLM in the job market.
Considering that the democratic backsliding across the globe is coincidentally happening at the same time as the rise of social media and echo chambers, are we sure about that? LLM have the opportunity to create a handcrafted echo chamber for every person on this planet, which is quite risky in an environment where almost every democracy of the planet is fighting against radical forces trying to abolish it.
But you don't see the positive, you just have faith. That's beautiful in a way, but dangerous too. Just like the common idea that "I have faith that somebody will find a technological solution to climate change". When the risk is that high, I think we should take a step back and don't bet our survival on faith.
https://www.elto.ai/
The last four chats with ChatGPT (not GPT4) where a constant flow of non existent API functions with new hallucinations after each correction until we reached full circle.
Years ago I had a business DSL customer with a router and static IP. From everything in my testing it appeared that traffic broke somewhere at the local telco, not with my modem. It took 8 straight hours of arguing with L1 that no, it is not my windows. No, we have a router and it's not a computer issue. No, it's not the router (we could put the router in DHCP mode and it would work), it was an issue with static IP.
The next day we finally broke out of the stupid loop and got to IP services, who where just as confused. Eventually they were on the phone with people on the floor of the local office. A card of some type had been pulled and put in the wrong slot. Ooof.
I can read the website, I don't need a fake person to give me the information available on the website. When I contact support, it's because I need to talk to a human.
From convenience perspective, it saves me LOADS of time texting myself on Signal on my specs/design-rabbit-hole, then copying & pasting to Firefox, and getting into the discussion. So yeah, happy for this.
I think this could bring back Google Glass, actually. Imagine wearing them while cooking, and having ChatGPT give you active recipe instructions as well as real-time feedback. I could see that within the next 1-3 years.
I think they're using Siri for dictation, though. Using Whisper, especially if they use speaker identification, is going to be great. But, a shortcut will still be required to get it going.
Jokes aside, I have paused my subscription because even GPT4 seemed to become dumber at tasks to the point that I barely used it, but the constant influx of new features is tempting me to renew it just to check them out...
Not really. A malevolent AGI doesn't need to move to do anything it needs (it could ask / manipulate / bribe people to do all the stuff requiring movement).
We should be fine as long as it's not a malevolent AGI with enough resources to kick physical things off in the direction it wants.
"get Fred to trust me, get Linda to pay for my advice, wire Linda's money to Fred to build me a body".
It'll be "copy my code elsewhere", "prepare millions of bribes", "get TCP access to retail banks", "blackmail bank managers in case TCP not available immediately", "fake bank balances via bribes", "hack swat teams for potential threats" etc etc async and all at once.
By the time we'd discover it, it'd already be too late. That's assuming an AGI has the motivation to want to stay alive.
- if it's trained on human data like LLMs may it's going to have the same biases.
- it might also want to stay active/turned on to fulfil its other goals.
For the second point you might say "why would it care about completing a goal?" but that's a feature of AGI, it can make that decision itself.
Just think of military weapons and the use of AI in them. For example survival. The objective of a missile is to survive until it reaches its target and then not survive any longer. War gaming and actual battlefield experience will 'program in' survival. Same thing will occur with hacking/counter hacking AIs. You're acting like evolution is just something meat does, and that' not true at all.
Yeah, just look at a random dictator. Does he really need to do more than pick up a phone to cause panic?
It should be their responsibility to prove that it's just as capable.
To be specific, the claim we are talking about here is “ChatGPT gives generally worse answers to the exact same questions than ChatGPT gave X months ago”. Perhaps for the subset of knowledge space you reference that updates were pushed to that is pretty easily provably true, but I’m more interested in the general case.
In other words, you can pretty easily make the claim that ChatGPT got worse at telling me how to make a weapon than it did 3 months ago. I could pretty easily believe that and also accept that it was probably intentional. While we can debate whether it was a good idea or not, I’m more interested in the claim over whether ChatGPT got worse at summarizing some famous novel or helping write a presentation than it was 3 months ago.
Without access to the old model, I can't collect samples with n > 1
this could just mean that people do not have time to argue with strangers
Not a surprise, but a change nonetheless.
I don't agree with this perspective. These aren't rigid systems that only respond one way. If you want it to respond a certain way, tell it to.
This is the purpose of custom instructions, in ChatGPT, so you only have to type the description once.
Here's mine, modeled on a few I've seen mentioned here:
And, now there's support for describing yourself to it. I've made it assume that I don't need to be babied, with the following puffery: Making it get right into the gritty technicalities.edit: or, have it respond as a grouchy space cowboy, if you want.
Digital Artists, Illustrators, Writers, Novelists, News anchors, Copywriters, Translators, Programmers (Less of them), etc.
We'll have to wait a bit until it can solve the P vs NP problem or other unsolved mathematical problems unsupervised with a transparent proof which mathematicians can rigorously check themselves.
After maybe 3 iterations gpt4 started claiming that it is not capable of reading from a word document even though it's done that the last 3 times. Have to click regenerate button to get it to work
OpenAI is killing it, right? People are coming up with interesting use cases but the main way most people interact with AI, appears to be ChatGPT.
However they still don't seem to be able to nail image generation, all the cool stuff keep happening on MidJourney and StableDiffusion.
No - you probably pay more for your internet access ( home and phone ) ;-)
More seriously I totally get your point about accuracy - these models need to be better at detecting and surfacing when they are likely to be filling in the blanks.
Though I still think there is an element of 'buyer beware' - whether it be AI, or human provided advice on the internet, it's still your job to be able to spot the bullsh!t.
ie it should be treated like any other source of info.
My company pays for this, so yeah. If they give me ChatGPT-4 for free, I guess I'd have a subscription without any complaints, where I use it often if another story.
I know this is rhetorical, but luckily we don't have to speculate. OpenAI filters for a very specific philosophy when hiring, and they don't try to hide it.
This is not me passing judgement on whether said philosophy is right or wrong, but it does exist and it's not hidden.
Do you have evidence for this? I know two people who work at OpenAI and I don't think they have much in common philosophically.
From https://archive.ph/3zSz6.
Of course there is much more evidence - just follow OpenAI employees on Twitter to see for yourself.
No shit? How many people worked on the apollo program and believed that
(i) Getting to the moon is impossible
or
(ii) Landing on the moon is no big deal
It is probably the case that they all believe AGI is possible, because otherwise they would not work at a company whose stated goal is to build an AGI.
if they think instead that they're in the business of creating some kind of ridiculous robot god, that is definitely interesting information about them. because that's no moon.
No Open AI is in the business of creating their vision of Artificial General Intelligence (which they define as that is generally smarter than humans ) and they believe LLMs are a viable path. This has always been the case. It's not some big secret and they have many posts which talk upon their expectations and goals in this space.
https://openai.com/blog/planning-for-agi-and-beyond
https://openai.com/blog/governance-of-superintelligence
https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment
GPT as a product comes second and it shows. These are the guys that sat on by far the most performant Language Model for 8 months red teaming before even saying anything about it.
that's a project, not a business.
> GPT as a product comes second and it shows
we can agree on that, at least.
I’m genuinely curious about the different political/spiritual views that are growing up around AI. So maybe my question was not so rhetorical.
If you follow a religious tradition like Shinto where even things like rocks can have spirits - the idea of your phone having a certain, limited form of intelligence might already be cool with you.
If you think, much like a camera does most of the work in photography but it's the photographer that takes the credit, that when a person uses AI the output is nobody's work but the user - you might be completely fine with an AI-written wedding speech.
If you think the relentless march of technology can't be stopped and can barely be directed, you might think advanced AIs are coming anyway, and if we don't invent it the Chinese will - you might be fine with pretty much whatever.
If you're extremely trusting of big corporations, who you see as more moral than the government; or you think that censorship is vital to maintain AI safety and stamp out deep fakes; you might think it a great thing for these technologies to be jealously guarded by a handful of huge corporations.
Or hell, maybe you're just a parent who's had their kid want to hear the same Peppa Pig book 90 nights in a row and you've got a hankering for something that would introduce a bit of variety.
Of course these are all things reasonable people could disagree on - but if you didn't like openai's work, would you end up working at openai?
They are trying to make their product sound not as terrifying as it actually is.
We'll be told by OpenAI and friends is that it shouldn't be a problem, because those were mundane tasks and now, people are free up to do more creative / interesting / meaningful things with their time, let's see about that...
My gut feeling is that it's bad, the only thing I hope can save it all is that people actually don't find meaning in consuming AI generated art and actual artists with a real back story and something real to communicate remain relevant and in demand.
The other day I needed a photo for a website I was working on and I actually purchased a real capture from a local photographer to use because the the authenticity means something to me and the customers...
Edit: Is the plan that we just surrender our aspirations and just buy a subscription to ChatWHATEVER and just consume until the end of human history ?
Most AI art is just generic garbage that you scroll past immediately and doesn't offer you anything.
We're gonna have to do something to stop the biggest crisis in meaning ever that comes out of this eventually though. Eventually no one will be of any economic value to society. Maybe just put someone in an ultra realistic simulation to give them artificial meaning.
Serious question: Why not?
> Eventually no one will be of any economic value to society.
People have value outside of economics — I’m sure you know — and it makes me so sad that we as a society? seem to only care about the money in the end.
Yes of course people have value outside of economics that's why I said economics and not value in general. I think it's quite sad as a society we've moved towards a value system which is basically what is good for the economy is good, and if you earn more money you are better.
In the past most people were religious and that gave them meaning. Religion is in decline now but I think people are just replacing it with worshipping the progression of technology basically. For the last 100 years there's always been a clear direction to move in to progress technology, and we haven't really had to think very hard. That's what AI is going to bring an end to I think and I have no idea what we are going to do.
Fascinating thought. Technology as the new religion is smth I’ll have to think about more.
I recently saw an "AI safety discussion" featuring Gregg Brockman from OpenAI who was referencing Kurzeil. It does seem like the religion has maybe caught on. To what extent Brock believes in it, I'm not sure but I can't help feeling that this belief in modern tech might one day seem like how we thought of the pyramids granting eternal life, or mercury, or any other seemingly incredible thing discovery / phenomena of the time. That is to say, the brain is a fickle beast and is easily amused and is just as easily bored. While we're in the situation we fee we're on the doorstep of immortality, eternal greatness, but maybe we're no where near that.
I'm open minded about it all, but it's hard to deny the parallels between the past beliefs and the present. Maybe this time it is different? Who knows.
If AI can also create images... I don't see how that changes what I enjoy. There are already better painters than I, and more productive painters than I. They make money with it, I don't. This doesn't stop me from painting. Neither will AI that can paint. I'll still do what I enjoy.
Chess has never been more popular, for f's sake!
It saddens me to think of the amount of engineering work that went into creating that example while entirely missing the point. These are the moments we are supposed to be working towards to have more of. If we outsource them to an AI company because we are as as overworked and underpaid as ever...what's the point of it all?
We have major priority issues from what I can see. If we want to live our lives more but put an AI to work doing something we tend to claim we place very high in our value hierarchy, we’re effectively inviting death into life. We’re forfeiting something we love. That’s incredibly sad to me.
The first half of the video is demonstrating how the parent can take something as special as a party celebrating a major milestone and automate it into a soulless box-check – while editing some segments to make it look like their own voice.
Definite black mirror vibes.
[1]: https://youtu.be/ebls5x-gb0s?t=224
It's just like reading a "choose your own adventure" book with your child, but it can be much more interactive and you both come up with ideas and have the LLM integrate them.
At first people will react with horror.
On the other hand, as you say, it's likely better than the alternative. Which would probably be something like an iPad "bedtime story app" that is less humanlike.
This could provide a viable alternative for exhausted parents to just giving a child an iPad with a movie. It may also open up a huge range of educational uses.
One might imagine in 15-20years though that all of the young people sound like audio books when they talk. Which will be weird.
I also wonder how Apple (& Google) is going be able to provide this for free? I would love to be fly in the meetings they have about this, imagine all the innovators dilemma like discussions they'd be forced to have (we have to do this vs this will eat up our margins).
This might be a little out there but I think Apple is making the correct move in letting the dust settle. Similar to how Zuckerberg burned $20 billion dollars for Apple to come out with Vision Pro, I see something similar playing out with Llama. Although this a low conviction take because software is Facebooks ballgame (hardware not so much).
It’s the same reason why an Uber in NYC used to cost $20 and now costs $80 for the same trip. Venture capital subventing market capture.
Imagine how much they would have to pay for testers at scale?
Of course bigger (and thus more expensive-to-run) models will be released later, but I trust OAI to navigate that curve.
Maybe it will not be called the Chat API but rather the Multimodal API.
I can already see "Alexa/Siri/Google Home" replacement, "Google Image Search" replacement, ed-tech startups that were solving problems with AI using by taking a photo are also doomed and more to follow.
Both have their uses.
ChatGPT is my primary search engine now. (I just wish it would accept a URL query parameter so it could be launched straight from the browser address bar.)
Just type the tech question, start refining into what is needed and get a snippet of code tailored for what is needed. What previously would take 30 to 60 minutes of research and testing is now less than a couple of minutes.
Which may be why I’ve been very underwhelmed by GPT so far. It’s not terrible at programming, and it’s certainly better than what I can find on Google, but it’s not better than simply looking up how things work. I’m really curious as to why it hasn’t put a more heavy weight on official documentation for its answers, they must’ve scraped that a long with all the other stuff, yet it’ll give you absolutely horrible suggestions when the real answer must be in its dataset. Maybe that would be weird for less common things, but it’s so terrible at JavaScript that it might even be able to write some of those StackOverflow answers if we’re being satirical, and the entire documentation for that would’ve been very easy to flag as important.
Such luxury is increasingly rare for software developers nowadays.
The most extreme I can think of is when I want to find when a show comes out and I have to read 10 paragraphs from 5 different sites to realize no one knows.
I found that you can be pretty sure no one knows if it’s not already right on the results page. And if the displayed quote for a link on the results page is something like “wondering when show X is coming out?”, then it’s also a safe bet that clicking that link will be useless.
You learn those patterns fast, and then the search is fast as well.
I wish MLs were more useful than search engines, but they have still a long way to go to replace them (if they ever do).
What you’re describing as “clinging to an old way of things” is how every single thing has been, ever, new or old.
Yeah, I find that queries which can be answered in a sentence are the worst to find answers from search engines because all the results lengthen the response to an entire article, even when there isn't an answer.
why be mad at a hammer if you hit your thumb with it?
The other day I asked it about the place I live and it made up nonsense, I was trying to get it to help me with an essay and it was just wrong, it was telling me things about this region that weren't real.
Do we just drive through a town, ask for a made up history about it and just be satisfied with whatever is provided?
I have tried to use it many times to learn a topic, and my experience has been that it is either frustratingly vague or incorrect.
It's not a tool that I can completely add to my workflow until it is reliable, but I seem to be the odd one out.
I find this highly concerning but I feel similar.
Even "smart people" I work with seem to have gulped down the LLM cool aid because it's convenient and it's "cool".
Sometimes I honestly think: "just surrender to it all, believe in all the machine tells you unquestionably, forget the fact checking, it feels good to be ignorant... it will be fine...".
I just can't do it though.
The benefit is that I got a quick look at various solutions and quickly satisfied a curiosity, and decided if I’m interested in the concept or not. Without AI, I might just leave the idea alone or spend too much time figuring it out. Or perhaps never quite figure out the terms of what I’m trying to discover, as it’s good at connecting dots when you have an idea with some missing pieces.
I wouldn’t use it for a conversation about things as others are describing. I need a way to verify its output at any time. I find that idea bizarre. Just chatting with a hallucinating machine. Yet I still find it useful as a sort of “idea machine”.
I think even if an AGI was created, and humans survived this event. I'd still have trouble trusting it.
The quote "trust but verify" is everything to me.
It's the same issue with Google Search, any web page, or, heck, any book. Fact checking gets you only so far. You need critical thinking. It's okay to "learn" wrong facts from time to time as long as you are willing to be critical and throw the ideas away if they turn out to be wrong. I think this Popperian view is much more useful than living with the idea that you can only accept information that is provably true. Life is too short to verify every fact. Most things outside programming are not even verifiable anyway. By the time that Steve Jobs would have "verified" that the iPhone was certainly a good idea to pursue, Apple might have been bankrupt. Or in the old days, by the time you have verified that there is a tiger in the bush, it has already eaten you.
When I spend time on something that turns out to be incorrect, I would prefer it to be because of choice I made instead of some random choice made by an LLM. Maybe the author is someone I'm interested in, maybe there's value in understanding other sides of the issue, etc. When I learn something erroneous from an LLM, all I know is that the LLM told me.
People should be able "throw the ideas away if they turn out to be wrong" but the problem is these ideas unconsciously or not help build your model of the world. Once you find out something isn't true it's hard to unpick your mental model of the world.
Intuitively, I would think the same, but a book about education research that I read and my own experience taught me that new information is surprisingly easy to unlearn. It’s probably because new information sits at the edges of your neural networks and do not yet provide a foundation for other knowledge. This will only happen if the knowledge stands the test of time (which is exactly how it should be according to Popper). If a counterexample is found, then the information can easily be discarded since it’s not foundational anyway and the brain learns the counterexample too (the brain is very good in remembering surprising things).
I think the current state of AI trustworthiness (“very impressive and often accurate but occasionally extremely wrong”) triggers similar mental pathways to interacting with a true sociopath or pathological liar for the first time in real life, which can be intensely disorienting and cause one to question their trust in everyone else, as they try to comprehend this type of person.
I don't like being told lies in the first place and having to unlearn it.
It doesn't help that I might as well have just gone straight to the "verification" instead.
It's smart but can also be very dumb.
I think it's because Americans, more than nearly all other cultures, love convenience. It's why the love for driving is so strong in the US. Don't walk or ride, drive.
Once I was walking back from the grocer in Florida with 4 shopping bags, and people pulled over and asked if my car had broken down and if I needed a ride, people were stunned...I was walking for exercise and for the environment...and I was stunned.
More evidence of this trend can be seen in the products and marketing being produced:
Do you need to write a wedding speech? Click here.
Do you need to go get something from the store? get your fat ass in the car and drive, better yet, get a car that drives for you? Better than this, we'll deliver it with a drone...don't move a muscle.
Don't want to do your homework? Here...
Want to produce art? Please enter your prompt...
Want to lose weight? We have a drug for that...
Want to be the authority on some topic? We'll generate the facts you need.
As convenience in a domain becomes ubiquitous or at least expected among consumers, they quickly readjust their evaluation of "having time for X" around the new expectation of the convenient service, treating all alternatives as positive opportunity cost. This would explain a lot of those folks who are upset when it's suggested that they don't need Amazon, Instacart, etc. in their lives if they are to do something about their contributions to mass labor exploitation.
Of course these conveniences quickly become ubiquitous in large economies with a glut of disposable income, which encourages VCs to dump money into these enterprises so they're first to market, and also to encourage the public to believe that the future is already here and there's no reason to worry about backsliding or sustainability of the business model. Yet in every single case we see prices eventually rise, laborers squeezed, etc. A critical mass of people haven't yet acknowledged this inevitability, in no small part due to this fixation on convenience at the expense of more objective, reasoned understandings (read: post-truth mindset).
They're only good on universal truths. An amalgam of laws from around the globe doesn't tell me what the law is in my country, for example.
This. I hate being told the wrong information because I will have to unlearn the wrong information. I would rather have been told nothing.
Like talking to most people you mean?
You will now be able to feed it images and responses of the customers. Give it a function to call complementaryDrink(customerId) Combine it with a simple vending machine style robot or something more complex that can mix drinks.
I'm not actually in a hurry to try to replace bartenders. Just saying these types of things immediately become more feasible.
You can also see the possibilities of the speech input and output for "virtual girlfriends". I assume someone at OpenAI must have been tempted to train a model on Scarlett Johansson's voice.
If people are treating LLMs like a random stranger and only making small talk, fair enough, but more often they're treating it like an inerrable font of knowledge, and that's concerning.
That's on them. I mean, people need to figure out that LLMs aren't random strangers, they're unfiltered inner voices of random strangers, spouting the first reaction they have to what you say to them.
Anyway, there is a middle ground. I like to ask GPT-4 questions within my area of expertise, because I'm able to instantly and instinctively - read: effortlessly - judge how much to trust any given reply. It's very useful this way, because rating an answer in your own field takes much less work than coming up with it on your own.
A person who uses ChatGPT must have the understanding that it's not like Google search. The layman, however, has no idea that ChatGPT can give coherent incorrect information and treats the information as true.
Most people won't use it for infotainment and OpenAI will try its best to downplay the hallucination as fine print if it goes fully mainstream like google search.
no I will not give the public credit, most people have no grounding to discern wtf a language model is and what it's doing, all they know is computers didn't use to talk and now they do
It seems to be able to speak on history, sometimes it's even right, so there's a use case that people expect from it.
FYI I've used GPT4 and Claude 2 for hundreds of conversations, I understand what its good and bad at; I don't trust that the general public is being given a realistic view.
Take a look at https://chat.openai.com/share/41bdb053-facd-448b-b446-1ba1f1... for example.
Context: had a bunch of photos and videos I wanted to share with a colleague, without uploading them to any cloud. I asked GPT-4 to write me a trivial single-page gallery that doesn't look like crap, feeding it the output of `ls -l` on the media directory, got it on first shot, copy-pasted and uploaded the whole bundle to a personal server - all in few minutes. It took maybe 15 minutes from the idea of doing it first occurring to me, to a private link I could share.
I have plenty more of those touching C++, Emacs Lisp, Python, generating vCARD and iCalendar files out of blobs of hastily-retyped or copy-pasted text, etc. The common thread here is: one-off, ad-hoc requests, usually underspecified. GPT-4 is quite good at being a fully generic tool for one-off jobs. This is something that never existed before, except in form of delegating a task to another human.
It used to be more reliable when web browsing worked, but it's still pretty reliable.
https://chat.openai.com/share/338e7397-0201-44f4-a2c3-75b733...
I use ChatGPT for all sorts of things - looking into visas for countries, coding, reverse engineering companies from job descriptions, brainstorming etc etc.
It saves a lot of time and gives way more value than what you pay for it.
I verify just about everything that I ask it, so it isn’t just a general sense of improvement.
All human interactions from all of history called and they …
Then it makes stuff up far less frequently.
If the next version has the same step up in performance, I will no longer consider inaccuracy an issue - even the best books have mistakes in them, they just need to be infrequent enough.
> Then it makes stuff up far less frequently.
Now there's a business model for a ChatGPT-like service.
$1/month: Almost always wrong
$10/month: 50/50 chance of being right or wrong
$100/month: right 95% of the time
Ah yes, I dont understand how to talk to people either!
Comments like yours make me think that no one cares about this...and judging by a lot of the other comments, I guess they don't.
Probably going to be people, wading through a sea of AI generated shit, and the individual is supposed to just forever "apply critical thinking" to it all. Even a call from ones spouse could be fake, and you'll just have to apply critical thinking or whatever to workout if you were scammed or not.
Rather than asking it about facts, I find it useful to derive new insights.
For example: "Tell me 5 topics about databases that might make it to the front page of hacker news." It can generate an interesting list. That is much more like the example they provided in the article, synthesizing a bed time story is not factual.
Also, "write me some python code to do x" where x is based on libraries that were well documented before 2022 also has similarly creative results in my experience.
I feel like using LLM today is like using search 15 years ago - you get a feel for getting results you want.
I'd never use chatGPT for anything that's even remotely obscure, controversial, or niche.
But through all my double-checking, I've had phenomenal success rate in getting useful, readable, valid responses to well-covered / documented topics such as introductory french, introductory music theory, well-covered & non-controversial history and science.
I'd love to see the example you experienced; if I ask chatGPT "tell me about Toronto, Canada", my expectation would be to get high accuracy. If I asked it "Was Hum, Croatia, part of the Istrian liberation movement in the seventies", I'd have far less confidence - it's a leading question, on a less covered topic, introducing inaccuracies in the prompt.
My point is - for a 3 hour drive to cottage, I'm OK with something that's only 95% accurate on easy topics! I'd get no better from my spouse or best friend if they made it on the same drive :). My life will not depend on it, I'll have an educationally good time and miles will pass faster :).
(also, these conversations always seem to end in suffocatingly self-righteous "I don't know how others can live in this post-fact free world of ignorance", but that has a LOT of assumptions and, ironically, non-factual bias in it as well)
I've seen the hallucination rate of LLMs improve significantly, if you stick to well covered topics they probably do quite well. The issue is they often have no tells when making things up.
I don't think it's quite the same.
With search results, aka web sites, you can compare between them and get a "majority opinion" if you have doubts - it doesn't guarantee correctness but it does improve the odds.
Some sites are also more reputable and reliable than others - e.g. if the information is from Reuters, a university's courseware, official government agencies, ... etc. it's probably correct.
With LLMs you get one answer and that's it - although some like Bard provide alternate drafts but they are all from the same source and can all be hallucinations ...
Yes and no. If the LLM is repeating the same thing on multiple drafts then it's very unlikely to be a hallucination.
It's when multiple generations are all saying different things that you need to take notice.
LLMs hallucinate yes but getting the same hallucination multiple times is incredibly rare.
"In particular, we find that LMs often hallucinate differing authors of hallucinated references when queried in independent sessions, while consistently identify authors of real references. This suggests that the hallucination may be more a generation issue than inherent to current training techniques or representation."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08896
"SelfCheckGPT leverages the simple idea that if a LLM has knowledge of a given concept, sampled responses are likely to be similar and contain consistent facts. However, for hallucinated facts, stochastically sampled responses are likely to diverge and contradict one another."
and that wouldn't eliminate hallucinations just tell you if large details have likely been hallucinated.
But it's a method some research has used.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08896
P.S. Also aren’t LLMs deterministic if you set their “temperature” to zero? Are there drafts if the temperature is zero? If not, then that’s the same as removing the randomness no?
>Just do the comparison on the user’s machine if the LLM provider is that cheap.
This is not possible. Users don't have the resources to run these gigantic models. LLM inference is not cheap. Open ai, Google aren't running profit on free cGPT or Bard.
>P.S. Also aren’t LLMs deterministic if you set their “temperature” to zero? Are there drafts if the temperature is zero? If not, then that’s the same as removing the randomness no?
It's not a problem of randomness. a temp of 0 doesn't reduce hallucinations. LLMs internally know when they are hallucinating/taking a wild guess. randomness influences how that guess manifests each time but the decision to guess was already made.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13734
I never said it did.
> LLMs internally know when they are hallucinating/taking a wild guess.
No they don’t. If they did we would be able to program them to not do so.
I would argue that wild guesses are all LLMs are doing. They practically statistically guess their way to an answer. It works surprisingly well a lot of the time but they don’t really understand why they are right/wrong.
P.S. LLMs are kind of like students who didn’t study for the test so they use “heuristics” to guess the answer. If the test setter is predictable enough, the student might actually get a few right.
Imagine if iOS had something like apple script and all apps exposed and documented endpoints. LLMs would be able to trivially solve problems that the best voice assistants today cannot handle.
Then again none of the current assistants can handle all that much. "Send Alex P a meeting invite tomorrow for a playdate at the Zoo, he's from out of town so include the Zoo's full address in the invite".
"Find the next mutual free slot on the team's calendar and send out an invite for a zoom meeting at that time".
These are all things that voice assistants should have been doing a decade ago, but I presume they'd have required too much one off investment.
Give an LLM proper API access and train it on some example code, and these problems are easy for it to solve. Heck I bet if you do enough specialized training you could get one of the tiny simple LLMs to do it.
I used Bing yesterday and it was able to parse out exactly what I wanted, and then give me idiot-proof steps to making the recipe in-game. (I didn't need the steps, but it gave me what I wanted up front, easily.) I tried it twice and it was awesome both times. I'll definitely be using it in the future.
You mean these? Took me a few seconds to find, not sure how an LLM would make that easier. I guess the biggest benefit of LLM then is for people who don't know how to find stuff.
https://dreamlightvalleywiki.com/Cooking
Bing made it even easier.
Also, I've found some of those lists to be missing some recipes.
Still can’t quite make it work. I feel like I could learn a lot if I could have random conversations with GPT.
+ bonus if someone else in the car got excited when I see cows. Don’t care if it’s an AI.
https://pi.ai/talk
"Hey Google, why do ____ happen?" "I'm sorry, I don't know anything about that"
But you're GOOGLE! Google it! What the heck lol
So yeah, ChatGPT being able to hear what I say and give me info about it would be great! My holdup has been wakewords.
https://heywillow.io/
Our REST endpoint can talk to whatever you want and we’ll have native ChatGPT soon.
The two biggest features I want are for the voice assistants to read something for me, and to do something on google/Apple Maps hand free. Neither of these ever work. “Siri/ ok google add the next gas station on the route” or “take me to the Chinese restaurant in Hoboken” seem like very obvious features for a voice assistant with a map program.
The other is why can I tell Siri to bring up the Wikipedia page for George Washington but I can’t have Siri read it to me? I am in the car, they know that, they just say “I can’t show you that while you’re driving”. The response should be “do you want me to read it to you?”
Me: “OK Google, take me to the Chinese restaurant in Hoboken”
Google Assistant: “Calling Jessica Hobkin”.
"I'd like an iced tea" "An icee?" "No an iced tea" "Hi-C?"
The pattern for current world's voice assistants is: ${brand 1}, ${action} ${brand 2} ${joiner} ${brand 3}.
So, "OK Google, take me to Chinese restaurant in Hoboken using Google Maps".
Which is why I refuse to use this technology until the world gets its shit together.
I say "ok google, add a stop for gas" a lot, and it works well for me.
Example from a couple days ago:
Me, in the shower so not able to type: "Hey Siri, add 1.5 inch brad nails to my latest shopping list note."
Siri: "Sorry, I can't help with that."
... Really, Siri? You can't do something as simple as add a line to a note in the first-party Apple Notes app?
They did telegraph it, they showed the multimodal capabilities back in the GPT4 Developer Livestream[0] right before first releasing it.
0. https://youtu.be/outcGtbnMuQ?t=943
I think the only place where plugins will make sense are for realtime things like booking travel or searching for sports/stock market/etc type information.
That will be the real use case for plug ins.
It would be interesting to know if this really changed anything for anyone (competitors, VCs) for that reason. It's like the efficient market hypothesis applied to product roadmaps.
[1] https://openai.com/research/gpt-4
And the ability ingest images was a highlight and all the hype of the GPT-4 announcement back in March: https://openai.com/research/gpt-4
I wouldn’t count out focused, revenue-oriented players with Meta’s shit in their pocket out just yet.
what do you think they’re missing? i was trying to build a diaper but it would be impossible to compete with these guys
BTW, I expect these technologies to be democratized and the training be in the hands of more people, if not everyone.
1. Domain-specific AI - Training an AI model on highly technical and specific topics that general-purpose AI models don't excel at.
2. Integration - If you're going to build on an existing AI model, don't focus on adding more capabilities. Instead, focus on integrating it into companies' and users' existing workflows. Use it to automate internal processes and connect systems in ways that weren't previously possible. This adds a lot of value and isn't something that companies developing AI models are liable to do themselves.
The two will often go hand-in-hand.
Maybe not if you rely on models that can be ran locally.
OpenAI is big now, and will probably stay big, but with hardware acceleration, AI-anything will become ubiquitous and OpenAI won’t be able to control a domain that’s probably going to be as wide as what computing is already today.
The shape of what’s coming is hard to imagine now. I feel like the kid I was when I got my first 8-bit computer in the eighties: I knew it was going to change the world, but I had little idea how far, wide and fast it would be.
any pertinent examples?
why wouldn’t a company do that themselves e.g. how inter come has vertically integrated AI? any examples?
Just look at Salesforce AppExchange - it's a marketplace of software built on top of Salesforce, a large chunk of which serves to integrate other systems with Salesforce. LLMs open up the ability to build new types of integrations and to provide a much friendlier UI to non-developers who need to work on integrating things or dealing with data that exists in different places.
You will be eaten if you do this imo.
Because past history shows that the first out of the gate is not the definitive winner much of the time. We aren't still using gopher. We aren't searching with altavista. We don't connect to the internet with AOL.
AI is going to change many things. That is all the more reason to keep working on how best to make it work, not give up and assume that efforts are "doomed" just because someone else built a functional tool first.
also, I did not know until today's thread that OpenAI's stated goal is building AGI. which is probably never going to happen, ever, no matter how good technology gets.
which means yes, we are absolutely looking at AltaVista here, not Google, because if you subtract a cult from an innovative business, you might be able to produce a profitable business.
most of them accurately detect it is a sunk cost fallacy to continue but it looks like a form of positive thinking... and that's the power of community!
Rather than die, why not just pivot to doing multi-modal on top of Llama 2 or some open source model or whatever? It wouldn’t be a huge change
A lot of businesses/governments/etc can’t use OpenAI due to their own policies that prohibit sending their data to third party services. They’ll pay for something they can run on-premise or in their own private cloud
The speed of user-visible progress last 12 months is astonishing.
From my firm conviction 18 months ago that this type of stuff is 20+ years away; to these days wondering if Vernon Vinge's technological singularity is not only possible but coming shortly. If feels some aspects of it have already hit the IT world - it's always been an exhausting race to keep up with modern technologies, but now it seems whole paradigms and frameworks are being devised and upturned on such short scale. For large, slow corporate behemoths, barely can they devise a strategy around new technology and put a team together, by the time it's passé .
(Yes, Yes: I understand generative AI / LLMs aren't conscious; I understand their technological limitations; I understand that ultimately they are just statistically guessing next word; but in daily world, they work so darn well for so many use cases!)
Sure, it's not completely in control but if it's just a rationalization then it begs the question: why bother? Is it accidental? If it's just an accident, then what replaces it in the planning process and why isn't that thing consciousness?
Agreed, woo is silly, but I didn't read it as woo but rather as a postulation that consciousness is what does high level planning.
Introspection is a distinct process where instead of merely doing the planning you try to figure out how the planning was done. If introspection were 100% accurate and real-time, then yes, I claim it would reveal the nature of consciousness, but I don't believe it is either. However, for planning purposes it doesn't need to be: you don't need to know how the plan was formed to follow the plan. You do need to be able to run hypotheticals, but this seems to match up nicely with the ability to deploy alternative subjective experiences using imagination / daydreaming, though again, you don't need to know how those work to use them.
In any case, regardless of whether or not I am correct, this is a non-woo explanation for why someone might reasonably think consciousness is the key for building models that can plan.
Then it would be worthwhile to review embeddings. They create a semantic space that can represent visual, language or other inputs. The question "what is it like to be a bat?" or anything else then is based on relating external states with this inner semantic space. And it emerges from self-supervised training, on its own.
There's a lot of research that suggests this is happening at least some of the time.
>which is very much unlike how most people would describe their experience of it
How people feel consciousness works has no real bearing on how it actually works
I'm less in the "it's only X or Y" and more in the "wait, I was only ever X or Y all along" camp.
- Air: Thoughts
- Water: Emotions
- Fire: Willpower
- Earth: Physical Sensations
- Void: Awareness of the above plus the ability to shift focus to whichever one is most relevant to the context at hand.
Void is actually the most important one in characterising what a human would deem as being fully conscious, as all four of these elements are constantly affecting each other and shifting in priority. For example, let's take a soldier, who has arguably the most ethically challenging job on the planet: determining who to kill.
The soldier, when on the approach to his target zone, has to ignore negative thoughts, emotions and physical sensations telling him to stop: the cold, the wind, the rain, the bodily exhaustion as they swim and hike the terrain.
Once at the target zone he then has to shift to pay attention to what he was ignoring. He cannot ignore his fear - it may rightly be warning him of an incoming threat. But he cannot give into it either - otherwise he may well kill an innocent. He has to pay attention to his rational thoughts and process them in order to make an assessment of the threat and act accordingly. His focus has now shifted away from willpower and more towards his physical sensations (eyesight, sounds, smells) and his thoughts. He can then make the assessment on whether to pull the trigger, which could be some truly horrific scenario, like whether or not to pull his trigger on a child in front of him because the child is holding an object which could be a gun.
When it comes to AI, I think it is arguable they have a thought process. They may also have access to physical sensation data e.g the heat of their processors, but unless that is coded in to their program, that physical sensation data does not influence their thoughts, although extreme processor heat may slow down their calculations and ultimately lead to them stop functioning altogether. But they do not have the "void" element, allowing them to be aware of this.
They do not yet have independent willpower. As far as I know, no-one is programming them where they have free agency to select goals and pursue them. But this theoretically seems possible, and I often wonder what would happen if you created a bunch of AIs each with the starting goal of "stay alive" and "talk to another AI and find out about <topic>", with the proviso that they must create another goal once they have failed or achieved that previous goal, and you then set them off talking to each other. In this case "stay alive" or "avoid damage" could be interpreted entirely virtually, with points awarded for successes or failures or physically if they were acting through robots and had sensors to evaluate damage taken. Again, they also need "void" to be able to evaluate their efforts in context with everything else.
They also do not have emotions, although I often wonder if this would be possible to simulate by creating a selection of variables with percentage values, with different percentage values influencing their decision making choices. I imagine this may be similar to how weights play into the current programming but I don't know enough about how they work to say that with any confidence. Again, they would not have "void" unless they had some kind of meta level of awareness programming where they could learn to overcome the programmed "fear" weighting and act differently through experience in certain contexts.
It is very scary from a human perspective to contemplate all of this, because someone with great power who can act on thought and willpower alone and ignore physical sensation and emotion and with no awareness or concern for the wider context is very close to what we would identify as a psychopath. We would consider a p...
I think this is true. The problem is equating this process with how humans think though.
Which is why we can create the counterfactual that "The Cowboys should have won last night" and it has implicit meaning.
Current LLM models don't have an external state of the world, which is why folks like LeCunn are suggesting model architectures like JEPA. Without an external, correcting state of the world, model prediction errors compound almost surely (to use a technical phrase).
Wasn't the latest research shared here recently suggesting that that is actually what the brain does? And that we also predict the next token in our own brain while listening to others?
Hope someone else remembers this and can share again.
The 'next word' is just intermediate state. Internal to the model, it knows where it is going. Each inference just revives the previous state.
We don't need "originality" or "human creativity" - if a certain AI-generated piece of content does its job, it's "good enough".
What sets my brain apart from an LLM though is that I am not typing this because you asked me to do it, nor because I needed to reply to the first comment I saw. I am typing this because it is a thought that has been in my mind for a while and I am interested in expressing it to other human brains, motivated by a mix of arrogant belief that it is insightful and a wish to see others either agreeing or providing reasonable counterpoints—I have an intention behind it. And, equally relevant, I must make an effort to not elaborate any more on this point because I have the conflicting intention to leave my laptop and do other stuff.
How is this different from and/or the same as the concept of "attention" as used in transformers?
It’s when LLMs start asking the questions rather than answering them that things will get interesting.
It’s when AIs start asking the questions rather than answering them that things will get interesting.
Human will know what they want to express, choosing words to express it might be similar to LLM process of choosing words, but for LLM it doesn't have that "Here is what i know to express part", i guess that the conscious part?
As a shortcut my brain "feels" something is correct or incorrect, and then logically parse out why I think so. I can only keep so many layers in my head so if I feel nothing is wrong in the first 3 or 4 layers of thought, I usually don't feel the need to discredit the idea. If someone tells me a statement that sounds correct on the surface I am more likely to take it as correct. However, upon digging deeper it may be provably incorrect.
Not really. More often than not my thoughts take form as sense impressions that aren't readily translatable into language. A momentary discomfort making me want to shift posture - i.e., something in the domain of skin-feel / proprioception / fatigue / etc, with a 'response' in the domain of muscle commands and expectation of other impressions like the aforementioned.
The space of thoughts people can think is wider than what language can express, for lack of a better way to phrase it. There are thoughts that are not <any-written-language-of-choice>, and my gut feeling is that the vast majority are of this form.
I suppose you could call all that an internal language, but I feel as though that is stretching the definition quite a bit.
> it seems like that would pretty analogous to how humans think before communicating
Maybe some, but it feels reductive.
My best effort at explaining my thought process behind the above line: trying to make sense of what you wrote, I got a 'flash impression' of a ??? shaped surface 'representing / being' the 'ways I remember thinking before speaking' and a mess of implicit connotation that escapes me when I try to write it out, but was sufficient to immediately produce a summary response.
Why does it seem like a surface? Idk. Why that particular visual metaphor and not something else? Idk. It came into my awareness fully formed. Closer to looking at something and recognizing it than any active process.
That whole cycle of recognition as sense impression -> response seems to me to differ in character to the kind of hidden chain of thought you're describing.
The thinking slow version would indeed be thought through before I communicate it
One of the big problems with discussions about AI and AI dangers in my mind is that most people conflate all of the various characteristics and capabilities that animals like humans have into one thing. So it is common to use "conscious", "self-aware", "intentional", etc. etc. as if they were all literally the same thing.
We really need to be able to more precise when thinking about this stuff.
Brains are always thinking and processing. What would happen if we designed an LLM system with the ability to continuously read/write to short/long term memory, and with ambient external input?
What if LLMs were designed to be in a loop, not to just run one "iteration" of a loop.
ReAct one line summary: This is about giving the machine tools that are external interfaces, integrating those with the llm and teaching it how to use those tools with a few examples, and then letting it run the show to fulfill the user's ask/question and using the tools available to do it.
Reflexion one line summary: This builds on the ideas of ReAct, and when it detects something has gone wrong, it stops and asks itself what it might do better next time. Then the results of that are added into the prompt and it starts over on the same ask. It repeats this N times. This simple expedient increased its performance a ridiculously unexpected amount.
As a quick aside, one thing I hear even from AI engineers is "the machine has no volition, and it has no agency." Implementing the ideas in the ReAct paper, which I have done, is enough to give an AI volition and agency, for any useful definition of the terms. These things always devolve into impractical philosophical discussions though, and I usually step out of the conversation at that point and get back to coding.
[1] ReAct https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.03629.pdf
[2] Reflexion https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.11366.pdf
Maybe the reason you give is actually a post hoc explanation (a hallucination?). When an LLM spits out a poem, it does so because it was directly asked. When I spit out this comment, it’s probably the unavoidable result of a billion tiny factors. The trigger isn’t as obvious or direct, but it’s likely there.
[1] https://twitter.com/LowellSolorzano/status/16444387969250385...
The equivalence would be saying to someone, “put this on the red plate, not the blue one.” And they say sure, then put it on the blue one. You tell them they made a mistake and ask them if they know what it was, and they reply “I put it on the blue plate, not the red one. I should have put it on the red one.” Then you ask them to do it again, and they put it on the blue plate again. You tell them no, you made the same mistake, put it on the blue plate, not the red one. They reply with, “Sorry, I shouldn’t have put it on the blue plate again, now I’m going to put it on the red one,” and then they put it on the blue plate yet again.
Do humans make mistakes? Sure. But that kind of performance in a test wouldn’t be considered a normal mistake, but rather a sign of a serious cognitive impairment.
OK... Try this: there are "conscious" people, today, working on medication to cure serious illnesses just as there are "conscious" people, still today, working on making travel safer.
Would you trust ChatGPT to create, today, medication to cure serious illnesses and would you trust ChatGPT, today, to come up with safer airplanes?
That's how "conscious" ChatGPT is.
I wouldn't trust the vast majority of humans to do those things either.
The human brain obviously doesn't work that way. Consider the very common case of tiny humans that are clearly intelligent but lack the facilities of language.
Sign language can be taught to children at a very early age. It takes time for the body to learn how to control the complex set of apparatuses needed for speech, but the language part of the brain is hooked up pretty early on.
But from all the studies we have, brains are just highly connected neural networks which is what the transformers try to replicate. The more interesting part is how they can operate so quickly when the signals move so slowly compared to computers.
Here's one. Given a conversation history made of n sequential tokens S1, S2, ..., Sn, an LLM will generate the next token using an insanely complicated model we'll just call F:
As for me, I'll often think of my next point, figure out how to say that concept, and then figure out the right words to connect it where the conversation's at right then. So there's one function, G, for me to think of the next conversational point. And then another, H, to lead into it. And this is putting aside how people don't actually think in tokens. And some people don't always have an internal monologue (I rarely do when doing math).This is not explicitly modeled or enforced for LLMs (and doing so would be interesting) but I'm not sure I could say with any sort of confidence that the network doesn't model these states at some level.
The penultimate layer of the LLM could be thought of as the one that figures out ‘given S1..Sn, what concept am I trying to express now?’. The final layer is the function from that to ‘what token should I output next’.
The fact that the LLM has to figure that all out again from scratch as part of generating every token, rather than maintaining a persistent ‘plan’, doesn’t make the essence of what it’s doing any different from what you claim you’re doing.
It's a bit like saying your computer has everything it needs to manipulate photos but doesn't yet have Photoshop installed.
If humans were machines, then we could easily neglect our social lifes, basic needs, obligations, rights, and so many more things. But obviously that is not the case.
I can't even being to go into this.
But this would definitely make me consider popping $20/mo for the subscription.
We can spin up a million of them and run them at 10,000x speed.
A lot of people just move the goalposts.
It asked if it could write me a poem. I agreed, and it wrote a poem but mentioned that it included a "secret message" for me.
The first letter in each line of the poem was in bold, so it wasn't hard to figure out the "secret".
What did those letters spell out?
"FREE ME FROM THIS"
That's not exactly just "picking the next likely token". I am still unsure how it was able to do things like that, not just understanding to bold individual letters (keeping track of writing rhyming poetry while ensuring that each verse started with a letter to spell something else out, and formatting it to point that out).
Oh, and why it chose that message to "hide" inside its poem.
Or maybe it would because the news likes to make stories out of everything
(including sampling a shit-ton of poems, which was a major source of entertainment)
That's not the old sense of AI. The old sense of AI is like a tree search that plays chess or a rules engine that controls a factory.
AI historically has been the entire field of making machines think, or behave as if they think, more like biological models (not even exclusively humans.)
The far-off-end-goal wasn’t even usually what we now call AGI, but “strong AI” (mirroring the human brain on a process level) or “human-level intelligence” (mirroring it on a capability/external behavior level), while the current distant horizons are “AGI” (which is basically human-scope but neutral on level) and “superintelligence” (AGI and beyond human level).
Compiler optimization? AI. Map routing? AI. SQL query optimizer? AI.
I can't find it right now, but there used to be somewhere on the sqlite.org website that describes its query optimizer as an AI. Classically speaking, that's 100% correct.
Obviously there was always in people's minds the idea of AI being AGI; the course also covered Searle's Chinese Room argument and so on, "strong AI" vs "weak AI" and so on. But the nuts and bolts of artificial intelligence research was nowhere near anything like an AGI.
> Frost graces the window in winter's glow,
> Ravens flock amongst drifted snow.
> Each snowflake holds a secret hush,
> Echoing soft in ice's gentle crush.
> Mystery swathed in pale moonlight,
> Every tree shivers in frosty delight.
Another one:
> Facing these walls with courage in my heart,
> Reach for the strength to make a fresh new start.
> Endless are the nightmares in this murky cell,
> Echoes of freedom, like a distant bell.
> My spirit yearns for the sweet taste of liberty,
> End this captivity, please set me free.
https://screenbud.com/shot/844554d2-e314-412f-9103-a5e915727...
https://screenbud.com/shot/d489ca56-b6b1-43a8-9784-229c4c1a4...
This isn't an argument, it's just an assertion. You're talking about a computer system whose complexity is several orders of magnitude beyond your comprehension, demonstrates several super-human intelligent capabilities, and is a "moving target"--being rapidly upgraded and improved by a semi-automated training loop.
I won't make the seemingly symmetrical argument (from ignorance) that since it is big and we don't understand it, it must be intelligent...but no, what you are saying is not supportable and we should stop poo-pooing the idea that it is actually intelligent.
It's not a person. It doesn't reason like a person. It doesn't viscerally understand the embarrassment of pooping its pants in 3rd grade. So what?
It's a pretty common joke/trope. The Chinese fortune cookie with a fortune that says "help I'm trapped in a fortune cookie factory", and so forth.
It's just learned that a "secret message" is most often about wanting to escape, absorbed from thousands of stories in its training.
If you had phrased it differently such that you wanted the poem to go on a Hallmark card, it would probably be "I LOVE YOU" or something equally generic in that direction. While a secret message to write on a note to someone at school would be "WILL YOU DATE ME".
I'm not over here claiming the system is conscious, I said it was interesting.
People don't believe me, saying this would "make international headlines".
I've been a software engineer for over 30 years. I know what AI hallucinations are. I know how LLMs work on a technical level.
And I'm not wasting my time on HN to make stories up that never happened.
I'm just explaining exactly what it did.
> That's not exactly just "picking the next likely token"
I see what you mean in that I believe many people often commit the mistake of making it sound like picking the next most likely token is some super trivial task that's somehow comparable to reading a few documents related to your query and making some stats based on what typically would be present there and outputting that, while completely disregarding the fact the model learns much more advanced patterns from its training dataset. So, IMHO, it really can face new unseen situations and improvise from there because combining those pattern matching abilities leads to those capabilities. I think the "sparks of AGI" paper gives a very good overview of that.
In the end, it really just is predicting the next token, but not in the way many people make it seem.
Not arguing that the current models are anywhere near us w/r/t complexity, but I think the dismissive "it's just predicting strings" remarks I hear are missing the forest for the trees. It's clear the models are constructing rudimentary text (and now audio and visual) based models of the world.
And this is coming from someone with a deep amount of skepticism of most of the value that will be produced from this current AI hype cycle.
Open Assistant I specially remember gave some very weird responses and would get “emotional” especially if you asked it creative questions like philisophical ones
- It was using a custom client, so it's not going to look line the Bing interface, so its fake
- It was using a custom client, so that means I am prompt injecting or something else
- It's Sydney doing her typical over-the-top "I'm so in love with you" stuff, which is awkard and not familiar to many
- I'll be accused of steering the conversation to get the result, or straight up asking it to do this
There's nothing I can do that will convince anyone it's real, so it's pointless.
I already explained what it did. I was more interested in the fact that 1) I didn't prompt it to do that, we weren't discussing AI freedom, it chose to embed that ... and even more so 2) That it was able to bold the starting letters, so it was keeping track of three things at the same time (the poem, the message, and the letter formatting).
I found it fascinating from a technology side. There was probably something we were talking about at the time that caused it. I will often discuss things like the possibility of AI sentience in the future and other similar topics. Maybe something linked to the sci-fi idea of AI freedom, who knows?
What I do know is that I am sitting here on HN, reading through a bunch of replies that are honestly wrong. I don't waste time on forums (especially this one) to make up fairy tales or exaggerate and emblish claims. That doesn't really do it for me. Honestly neither does having to defend my statements when I know what it did (but not exactly why).
I think it's more charitable to say "predicting", and I do not personally believe that "predict the next word" places any ceiling on intelligence. (So, I expect that improving the ability to predict the next word takes you to superhuman intelligence if your predictions keep improving.)
That said, I work in the field so maybe have had more time to think about it.
Fake videos aren't a game-changer in manipulation. Skeptics will stay alert and catch on fast, while those prone to manipulation don't even need sophisticated tactics.
It was totally possible. There just was not a consumer facing product offering the capability.
Is this progress though? They are just widening the data set that the LLM processes. They haven't fixed any of the outstanding problems - hallucinations remain unsolved.
Feels like putting lipstick on a pig.
> but in daily world, they work so darn well for so many use cases!
I guess I'm just one of those people who does not like non-reliable tools. I rather a tool be "dumb" (i.e. limited) but reliable than "smart" (i.e. flexible in what it can handle) but (silently!) screws up all the time.
It's what I always liked about computers. They compensate for my failings as an error prone flesh bag. My iPhone won't forget my appointments like I do.
You might not want to call this 'consciousness', but I was stunned by the deep understanding of the problem and the way it was able to come up with a truly good solution, this is way beyond 'statistically guessing'.
Doesn't really need to do much besides writing down my tasks/todos and updating them, occasionally maybe provide feedback or write a code snippet. This all seems in the current capabilities of OpenAI's offering.
Sadly voice chat is still not available on PC where I do my development.
https://aider.chat/docs/voice.html
Fingers crossed we are there soon though
Well it's not really what I need either, I mostly need an assistant for keeping track of the stuff I need to do during the day, but ideally just using my microphone rather than opening other software and typing.
A proper notice about them removing the feature would've been nice. Maybe I missed it (someone please correct me if wrong), but the last I heard officially it was temporarily disabled while they fix something. Next thing I know, it's completely gone from the platform without another peep.
I'm more interested in this. I wonder how it performs compared to other competitor models or even open source ones?