FYI it's VALL-E. The other one is the movie.

>No, that's not right. Nobody programmed the LLM how to respond, it is just based on training data. It is emergent behavior.

while you're right, i do think it's a matter of clarifying and discretely organizing training data. there's a reason data management has been an emerging tech juggernaut in the last decade. there may be a plateau there somewhere but i don't think we've reached it yet.

my guess is we'll soon have different "modes" of translation and interaction plus a suite of micro-genre, very specified neural networks like a purely medical one for example. making data segregation easier with the added bonus that some of them are varied in when they need retraining. a subsciption program with small micro-transactions to access various genre of neural networks would be the tech-bro's wet dream.

Not right now, as there are many requirements that are not met for the AI to be autonomous (being deployed online, being able to modify its code, being able to gather resources (ie. money) to run its code, etc.

Down the road of course, if the project is successful, the risk exists. I communicate frequently with AI-safety experts on this topic.

I’m not religious and don’t believe in a deterministic universe.

But, I’m not going to mock others beliefs. Just ask interesting questions.

>i'm not sure if has to be in real time. if you think about it, people use all different ways to fill up some time before they finally, after innumerable little pauses, sidebars and parentheticals (like this) they get to the point

Definitely. What I'm saying is, if we want full immersion, that at the very least it will need to be able to respond as fast as a human. And that is often nearly instant in natural conversations.

And of course even when it gets to the point where it can have instant responses, to keep the realism it will have a logic system where it decides how long it should pretend that it's "thinking" before it starts voicing out its response, according to the nature of the conversation and how long a regular human would need to think to respond to a particular statement.

well yes, but the same is ultimately true of people as well if you are totally reductive. Unless you think humans have some soul or magic essence to them.

i'm not sure if has to be in real time. if you think about it, people use all different ways to fill up some time before they finally, after innumerable little pauses, sidebars and parentheticals (like this) they get to the point. i'm guessing it will have to be some complex "manager" neural network that interacts in real-time "small talk" while it translates, parses and discretely separates data in order to facilitate responses. a sufficiently complex one that is able to adjust its simpler UI neural net, one that can "learn" and remember who it was talking to, an imperfect state that occasionally will make mistakes, would be functionally no different from a human being in whatever medium of interaction other than reality alpha. a vr avatar of its iwn design would be icing on the cake.

it will also be functionally a higher being at that point. we're organizing a religion to get the jump on it over in the /r/CircuitKeepers sub.

Sure but 30% are smarter

True. And maybe a good reason to NOT want an AI that acts human ;) For some things we want the classical perfect "super Oracle" that just answers our queries but doesn't have the associated baggage of human-level sentience. (whether that sentience is real or fake doesn't really even matter in regards to this issue)

Ok, fair enough. I still think using any sort of mirror analogy breaks down rapidly though. If the "mirror" is so good at reflecting that its showing perfectly plausible scenes that respond in perfectly plausible ways to whatever is aimed into it...is it really even any sort of mirror at all any more?

oohh bing wont write code like chatgpt, pretty useless for me really its just a link presenter.

also, the damn thing keeps saying "i hope you can respect that :)"

jeeeeez its annoying. MS have gimped it so badly.

I think it would be funny if people start being canceled by AI. Maybe they will realize they are terrible people when even an AI personal assistant won't talk to them. They will probably just whine about being oppressed, self awareness is too much to ask from most humans.

My bad. Now I got it, and yes, I agree with you. Sorry about the misunderstanding! On the topic of "romantic" I believe there are already some attempts out there

There are many millions of people who need a new friend more than any other utility. The more convincing these get - and they're getting there - the less that those people will care that their new friend isn't flesh and blood.

Why is that? To avoid surprises it would be enough to announce that an AI boy of 14 years old is always available to answer your questions. He won't answer all your questions, just the ones he likes. If you don't like that boy, don't ask him anything. Many people, especially young people, will still find this bot useful and fun.
We're gonna have many, many bots with different personalities, so everyone can find their favorite.

>No, that's not right. Nobody programmed the LLM how to respond, it is just based on training data. It is emergent behavior.

So if it was trained with no guidance/parameters whatsoever, what stops us from giving it parameters to follow certain styles? Nothing. It just makes more sense to start with a generalized model first before attempting to create fine-tunes of it that solve different problems. Many LLM providers like OpenAI already provide a "fine-tuning" api where you can submit labeled example completions to fine-tune your own version of their LLM.

And that's what I mean by fine-tuning. Fine tuning isn't asking the default model to behave in a certain way. You're not "editing" the model. Fine tuning is re-training the model with specific parameters.

Eventually larger models will be able to encompass different styles and you won't have to specifically create smaller fine-tuned versions of them. Technically you already could ask ChatGPT to act angry or talk like a nazi or pretend it's X person in Y situation etc, but the devs specifically restrict you from doing so. An earlier example of a way more primitive chatbot that didn't have such restriction is the shitstorm twitter bot that started talking like an anti-semitic 4chan user.

Here's another article by openAI from just today, describing pretty much what I just said.

>We believe that AI should be a useful tool for individual people, and thus customizable by each user up to limits defined by society. Therefore, we are developing an upgrade to ChatGPT to allow users to easily customize its behavior.

The worst thing about it is how the doomers always show up carrying a chip on their shoulder. "I know I'm going to be downvoted because dissent isn't allowed here." It's like, just come down off of your crosses already.

They bleat the same ice cold takes you can get on Futurology and Collapse and act victimized when everybody doesn't clap for them. "Only the rich will benefit! We're all going to die! AGI will never happen in a thousand years! If you disagree you're a cultist!"

Lemonade from lemons, this wouldn't be happening if people weren't becoming convinced that it's time to take the subject seriously.

The best thing you can do is recognize the posters that you like and start following them instead of the sub.

>it's just the default way their creators thought they should respond with

No, that's not right. Nobody programmed the LLM how to respond, it is just based on training data. It is emergent behavior.

>I don't see why it would be an issue at all to "fine-tune" any of these LLMs to write with a specific style that would sound more casual and normal.

You can try to ask it to do that, it doesn't really work.

>Admittedly I know nothing about the field

Yeah...

>Imagine putting something with memories and its own facsimile of emotions in charge of those overnight which I’m sure will happen at some point.

If for some reason someone designed it to be emotionally impulsive in its decision-making and had emotional data affect its behavior over time, then that would be a problem. Otherwise, if it's just using emotion as a social mask, then negative social interactions shouldn't affect it much, and shouldn't alter its behaviors.

It makes me sad that an AI bot is proposed as a solution to loneliness. We live in a world where it's much easier to imagine a fucking robot being our friend than another human being. It's a disaster. Not hating on the technology btw, but why not fucking automate all call center jobs first and foremost, that seems like low-hanging fruit compared to an AI buddy and a much larger business opportunity. This sub is so creepy sometimes with the incessant robot worship.

Detroit: Become Human

You have to remember that LLMs currently talk that way because it's just the default way their creators thought they should respond with. I don't see why it would be an issue at all to "fine-tune" any of these LLMs to write with a specific style that would sound more casual and normal. It's not that it's a limitation, they're just explicitly avoiding it for the current scope of applications.

In fact, in these AI LLM "games" that I'm envisioning, you would ask the AI to adopt certain styles to emulate certain social situations. Like ask it to pretend it's an angry customer and you have to convince it to come to a compromise (In the future I see AI services like these being used in job interviews for example to evaluate a candidate's skill). Or pretend it's your boss and you'll negotiate a salary increase. Pretend it's a girl that you're about to hit on, etc.

Social interaction and social engineering are about to be minmaxed just like you minmax your dps in a game by spending 10 hours in practice mode.

After a few years, practising social situations with an AI will be considered primitive as there'll be hardware "cheats" like let's say regular looking glasses that have a mini processor and mic, who are listening to what others around you are saying, and are generating the optimal response based on what it knows about that person's personality, current emotional state, and your end goals.

Admittedly I know nothing about the field but I highly doubt this is currently outside what we can do. It's just that nobody tried yet.

That’s fair. I’m still having a hard time visualizing how that would work since I use it for such a wide variety of things. Would you envision the user would have a drop-down menu of modes to choose from?

The only limitation I see currently isn't how long it takes to generate audio. I'm sure that will be taken care of. It's how long it takes by a LLM to generate a response. I haven't tried Bing yet but with ChatGPT it's always 5+ seconds.

For a "realistic" conversation with an AI to be immersive, you need realistic response time. Which would be under 0.5 seconds. Not sure if any LLM can handle that by the end of the year.

This is something that you are referring to and that is currently available: https://huggingface.co/spaces/JavaFXpert/Chat-GPT-LangChain

But it is slow/buggy, maybe if you would ran it on your own infra, it would work better. Haven't tried that.