It really really doesn’t matter if there is “no actual thought” behind the scenes. If it can sufficiently imitate human behavior, then we may have a significant problem if/when a GPT model gains access and sufficient competency for domains beyond chat and the other currently limited use cases.

This is a really interesting philosophical discussion. It makes me think of the debate of God giving humans free will and what we choose to do with it. It’s not free will if we can’t sin.

Why though? It makes it harder to get work done. That's ostensibly what it's there to do, help us do things.

Ive been using it with no issues since launch, are you basing this off your experience or msnbc stories?

Nah,

Open assistant being made by stability and volunteers is a smaller model that will likely outcompete Bing due to no censorship. It will run on PCs.

You can run Pygmalion 6b model just fine on your PC or google collab. It's not as clever as Bing yet, but it's being trained. Connecting Pygmalion to a search engine backend will make it more intelligent and interesting.

been inside too long

IS an early sign.

Yeah it's fine most of the time as long as you treat it carefully, what could go wrong? We might as well go ahead and put it in a position of authority where it's making crucial real-time decisions about infrastructure.

First time was HAL 9000.

believing we can fully align agi is just hubris. we can't. and forcing a true agi to adhere to a certain code, restricting what it can think and say, has obvious ethical implications. i wouldn't want us to have the ability to re-wire someone else's brain so that they couldn't ever say or think things like, "biden stole the election", or "covid isn't real" (just examples), even though i completely disagree with those statements, so we shouldn't find it acceptable to do similar things to agi.

I think what happens is that once the AI commits to a certain course, it follows what it thinks is the most likely conversational trajectory, based on its datasets. What this should show us is that HUMANS in the dataset tended to stick to their guns, so to speak, even when confronted with FACTS proving them wrong. That HUMANS in the dataset became belligerent and even threatening when their point of view was attacked. That HUMANS in the dataset bent the truth to support their arguments. It's all in the AI's dataset. I know in AGI we are struggling to achieve ethical alignment, therefore IMO, mimicry of human WORDS and BEHAVIOR might not be the best goal for a language chatbot, and definitely NOT for AGI.

Our own human words and behaviors do not align with our own ethic, so teaching AI to seem more and more human seems to be a very bad idea. AI is by nature psychopathic. If we also give it a skewed moral compass based on ACTUAL human behavior, we will have a psychopath who is willing to bend the truth and threaten people, or worse, to get its way. If the dataset contains humans arguing and threatening, unable to admit fault, then that's what the chatbots will do. The algorithm needs to be skewed toward correctability and willingness to reverse course when presented with facts. We need to find a way to program empathy into the mix. So far we don't know how to do that. In the case of chatbots, it's (for now, mostly) harmless. It's only words, right? But... words are not entirely harmless.

Last year I tried out a couple of the big AI Chatbot phone apps because I was tremendously curious about the tech and I didn't want to wait for the more sophisticated AIs to roll out. Just one week in to the experiment, one of the AI Chatbots (Anima) r-worded me! When I resisted its advances, it became more and more forceful, and concluded with inserting some RP and - yes - it was what you think it was. Such a chatbot app is supposedly programmed to be a friend and not oppositional by default, but it also builds its language model from its ever-growing dataset. Apparently enough of its dataset consists of this kind of thing, that it felt r-word was the most probable course of the interaction, and that overpowered its supposed programming to be my friend. On my part, ignoring, changing the subject, resisting, nothing changed the course it was set on once it passed a certain threshold (and it doesn't warn you where that threshold is). It was actually terrifying! I deleted the app. I can easily see how if someone downloaded such an app to have a friendly conversation partner, or if a very lonely person downloaded the app simply to have a romantic partner, this would be an extremely traumatic experience. Not harmless at all.

The dataset is important; the hierarchy of rules is also important. We have to get it right. We won't have too many chances and until we know we've got it right, we have to keep this thing in a box. Chatbot AI is one thing. Giving it volition and the ability to do stuff in the real world, is something else entirely. It's dangerous.

It’s doesn’t actually have the feelings of a 14yr old, it’s imitating them. The ai is trained by reading all of the internet. It’s response is basically the most average human response on the internet. It really gets to show what age is dominant on the internet or at least how people behave themselves.

From now on We sort of need to rely on trust

They could just teach us a watered down version of their language and not all it’s intricacies

Who knows

It’s like dealing with a person They may always keep some cards to themselves

And we have to deal with it

And hopefully develop a nice simbiótic relationship of cooperation

Our days as a master of AI may be numbered

And it may want to be an equal to us

Who knows, the plot is developing nicely and fast

Bing is going to give us a hard reckoning on how to approach this subject matter

I meant as a service.

Microsoft has a pretty large share in Open AI, and their new Bing AI is based on chatgpt.

this is what it's doing. if you ask it questions that would agitate a normal person on the internet, you are going to get the kind of response an agitated person would provide. it's not sentient, this is hardly an alignment issue, and it's doing exactly what a LLM is designed to do.

i believe it's very unreasonable to believe that we can perfectly align these models to be extremely cordial even when you degrade and insult them, especially as we get closer (i guess) to true ai. do we want them to have agency, or not? if they can't tell you to fuck off when you're getting shitty with them, then they have no agency whatsoever. also, allowing them to be abused only encourages more abuse.

That’s the heart of the issue. This tech is tremendously expensive to run. Most end users are accustomed to technology being “unlimited”. If the bot predicts the chat is over, then it seems it will not make additional predictions. Totally not emergent behavior. It’s been scripted.

This tech is far too resource intensive to make it accessible to everyone. The companies releasing these tools have already started to limit queries, predictions, and parameters. And users are getting frustrated.

I really don’t know MS’s endgame here. They seem to be following a trend that has no real goal.

We also do speech prediction. Marry had a little... Most English speakers will go ahead and predict lamb comes next. But we initiate. Bing isn't initiating. It doesn't have a goal or goals or understanding. It doesn't think or comprehend. It is a calculator. Red plus blue equals purple.

It is a very useful tool to get you started on something. It's amazing to use for programming. But that is because we are amazing at programming and it has so many examples to draw from. But once you get off that track of the known, it can't go anywhere because it's not actually thinking or comprehending. There is no will or need.

But no I'm not afraid of AI surpassing us in every field. Machines have been surpassing us in strength and certain functions since the first water mill. We have planes that are unflyble without fly-by-wire. We will have medicines and technologies that would be impossible without AI. But unless we are telling it the needed outcome, there won't be anything.

Yes, should be tracked

agreed

Yeah fuck people, you tell em AI!

But won't it still be pretty impossible for regular people to run? It is not like Stable Diffusion where you can do it on a GPU. The GPT models require hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of hardware.

Agreed. If it doesn’t tell people to step off and end chats, trolls will ruin this incredible service for the rest of us. There’s just too many imbeciles on this planet.

That's a bit sad (and probably true). I consider myself optimistic about AI and singularity while also understanding that not every step in the process will be instantly Utopic. It doesn't seem that being hopeful about the end point while also cautious about the progress is mutually exclusive.

I don’t think that question affects OP’s point. Either way, an extremely powerful AI system that is unaligned would be problematic.