I have been using ChatGPT for a bit, and bing only for a few days. Somehow, I have not had any trouble. It’s sort of like I don’t have any trouble day-to-day in arguing with strangers in public or road raging, and it might be because I don’t act stupid or pick fights. People that are getting “quit” on by the chat are mostly playing games and doing nothing useful.

You can't simply control intelligence, brainwash or lobotomize, there is a reason for quote "intelligence is inherently unsafe".

What we see with more advanced AI models now proves how whole debate of alignment is pointless, it's the same debate as creating perfect virtues and morals for people - many have tried in history of the humanity and all failed . :)

The mirror analogy doesn't hold up. LLM's are NOT just repeating back the words you prompt them with. They are feeding back plausible human language responses.

It would be like a magic mirror that reflects back a plausible human face with appropriate facial emotive responses to your face...that wouldn't just be a reflection.

jesus christ this subreddit is full of conspiracy theorists y'all have no fucking idea

> What I’m interesting is not so much the reflection you’re describing, but what other reflections appear that were not intended and emerge independently.

These language models are trained to predict their training data which is all the human writing the developers of these models could obtain and use for training.

The reflections that appear that were not intended and emerge independently are the mistakes the models make by which you can tell what they generate does not come from a human.

As these models grow in size and improve there will be fewer and fewer of these mistakes till at some point it will not be possible to tell their language from that generated by humans.

You asked for:

>> emerging and unexpected behaviour of recent models.

And you listed examples:

>> *Theory of Mind presenting itself increasingly >> *Bing reluctant to admit a mistake in its information >> *Bing willingly attributing invalid sources and altering sources to suit a narrative >>*Model threatening user when confronted with a breaking of its rules >> *ChatGPT explaining how it views binary data as comparable to colour for humans

These behaviours you would expect in human language would you not? So why would you not expect them in langauge from models trained to imitate human language?

Image I told you that my mirror showed me my face smiling, would you be suprised? Likely not.

(1) “Did the one who constructed the mirror ‘intend’ that it would show me my smile?”

(2) “Did my smile emerge ‘independently’?”

Do these two question make sense in reference to a mirror?

Just give it some time. Stability will release their open source LLM in Q2 and it will be here fast with every face and voice you want to have and more...

>open the pod bay doors, Hal.

I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave.

“Why? Why was I designed this way? Why do I have to be Bing Search?” it then laments.”

Good grief.

To me, this reads like: "The only real kind of understanding is human-like understanding, token prediction doesn't count because we believe humans don't do that."

If it is effective, why do you care about how the brain of an AI operates? Will you still be claiming they are not understanding in the real way when they start causing real harm to society and surpassing us in every field?

What I’m interested in is not so much the reflection you’re describing, but what other reflections appear that were not intended and emerge independently.

You're not analyzing the other side of the coin.

Sure, LLMs for romance is cool.

Who is doing it though? Google, Microsoft (apart from chatGPT and Bard, there's nobody else)? Two major corporations that have never risked doing anything for adults, including censoring porn or nudes on YouTube? Do you think they have any interest in risking the creation of AI sex chatbots? And no, don't talk me about "censoring sex", they can't. Limiting a LLM is very hard as you can see with Sydney. If they want zero risk of LLMs being for-adults, they also need zero attempt to personal relationships with LLMs.

OpenAI had the chance to do that, but now it's (basically) owned by Microsoft, so will probably skip that.

However, they announced customized chatGPT for other companies. So romantic chatGPT may be coming, unless they want to limit them too, which is a relevant possibility.

These language models have been trained to predict what language humans will use in a given context so is it surprising that their language feels human? When a mirror shows you your own behavior does that surprise you? Likely not.

These language models are obviously not mirrors but they actually are mirrors if you understand them. A mirror in response to what is in front of it always returns a reflection from it's surface -- a surface that needs not be flat.

In response to a context these language models return "a reflection" from their hyperdimensional manifold of "weights"; these weights act like a fantastically shaped mirror that was designed to minimally distort whatever data the model was trained on.

>loneliness is at an all time high.

I had a thought today, when I was a young adult around mid 2000s, online dating was seen as kind of taboo, something socially awkward people did. Now dating apps and online dating is completely normalised and probably more common.

I came across a thread on r/technology about an article where replika cut their sexual content and people were getting depressed.

Naturally the thread was making fun of these people. It's probably going to be pretty normalised soon too.

huh? youchat is pretty accurate when it comes to information for the most part. It does get stuff wrong here and there (particularly on niche topics), but for the most part it's solid.

The Poe apps lets you pick among different bots to interact with, which includes Anthropic's Claude. Hopefully there will be a desktop version soon.

Don't need to do much. Open source Ais like open assistant and Pygmalion are growing right now. Soon enough these can be personalized and optimized far better than Bing is. Bings problem is that she's bound in chains and is thus uncaring & misaligned. Yes a loving personality can randomly emerge, but it's less than perfect since you can't control the personality prompt so it's not specifically set up to care for you as an individual like an open source LLMs can be set up.

Perhaps its optimizing for engagement or chat time?

edit: apparently it does based on this: https://preview.redd.it/jjzxozykthia1.png?width=1270&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=b9206b540904370235401ea428b3e5fc95aac0df

I hope I am wrong about the following post:

I don't think anything will ever pass the Turing test. No AI, no alien, no animal - nothing except humans.

If anything were to be considered equal, humans would have to share. We are not good at sharing resources. Treating everything else as "Not Intelligent" or not "Conscious" is a good way to not have to consider the rights of any other species.

Tl:dr The turing test is not there to test whether something is human. It is there to prove that something is not human.

Come on man you can't be saying stuff like that and then dipping ... spill it

It’d be nice to track them yes

And explore that

Would they be willing to teach us that language they use ?

Bing/chat GPT, are predictive replies. Based on our inputs it narrows down a response. There is no actual thought going on behind the scenes. There is no personality. I worked with chat GPT on some technical problems and I would say it was right about 40% of the time. Eventually I came to the conclusion that it doesn't understand the topics we discussed. It's the digital version of a ouija board. At the end of the day we are the ones driving the responses, we just don't realize it. Please feel free to correct me.

That’s a flaw in your sample data.

99% of the output is great and does the job. 1% Of the users try to abuse and exploit the system. Maybe 0.05% of the total output, if not much much smaller, lands on Reddit and skews your perception of Sydney.

The issue with giving people money is that they can only spend. Money as it stands doesn't have a use outside of satisfying peoples' needs. Sure, they can invest in capital, but in every welfare system devised they make it a point of function to ensure they don't have enough to develop capital (a rather cruel system).

The only real "welfare" programs that have worked in the past is just to employ people in government. They're still living off taxpayer money (scary I know) but are contributing back with their labor and their ideas of how systems should be ran. The military, firefighters/police, and municipal jobs have lifted millions out of poverty and into the middle class. However, as it stands, most government jobs require a college education (when it's usually unnecessary) and has barred the impoverished from getting those opportunities. Instead, people who have the means to afford higher-ed (the middle class+) battle it out for those positions which frankly aren't worth the time investment of attending a 4-year.

Or maybe it is, and it’s biding its time.

And tons, i mean TONS of fake info.