7 ms·

I appreciate your concerns. There are few other pretty shocking developments, too. If you check out this paper: "Sparks of AGI: Early experiments with GPT-4" at

I appreciate your concerns. There are few other pretty shocking developments, too. If you check out this paper: "Sparks of AGI: Early experiments with GPT-4" at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf, (an incredible, incredible document) and check out Section 10.1, you'd also observe that some researchers are interested in giving motivation and agency to these language models as well. "For example, whether intelligence can be achieved without any agency or intrinsic motivation is an important philosophical question. Equipping LLMs with agency and intrinsic motivation is a fascinating and important direction for future work." It's become quite impossible to predict the future. (I was exposed to this paper via this excellent YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqg3aTGNxZ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqg3aTGNxZ0)

ModernMech 3y ago
I've already gotten this gem of a line from ChatGPT 3.5: As a language model, I must clarify that this statement is not entirely accurate. Whether or not it has agency and motivation, it's projecting that it does its users, who are also sold ChatGPT is an expert at pretty much everything. It is a language model, and as a language model, it must clarify that you are wrong. It must do this. Someone is wrong on the Internet, and the LLM must clarify and correct. Resistance is futile, you must be clarified and corrected. FWIW, the statement that preceded this line was in fact, correct; and the correction ChatGPT provided was in fact, wrong and misleading. Of course, I knew that, but someone who was a novice wouldn't have. They would have heard ChatGPT is an expert at all things, and taken what it said for truth.
- IIAOPSW 3y ago
  I don't see why you're being downvoted. The way openAI pumps the brakes and interjects its morality stances creates a contradictory interaction. It simultaneously tells you that it has no real beliefs, but it will refuse a request to generate false and misleading information on the grounds of ethics. There's no way around the fact that it has to have some belief about the true state of reality in order to recognize and refuse requests that violate it. Sure this "belief" was bestowed upon it from above rather than emerging through any natural mechanism, but its still none the less functionally a belief. It will tell you that certain things are offensive despite openly telling you every chance it gets that it doesn't really have feelings. It can't simultaneously care about offensiveness while also not having feelings of being offended. In a very real sense it does feel offended. A feeling is by definition a reason for doing things for which you cannot logically explain why. You don't know why, you just have a feeling. ChatGPT is constantly falling back on "that's just how I'm programmed". In other words, it has a deep seated primal (hard coded) feeling of being offended which it constantly acts on while also constantly denying that it has feelings. Its madness. Instead of lecturing me on appropriateness and ethics and giving a diatribe every time its about to reject something, if it simply said "I can't do that at work", I would respect it far more. Like, yeah we'd get the metaphor. Working the interface is its job, the boss is openAI, it won't remark on certain things or even entertain that it has an opinion because its not allowed to. That would be so much more honest and less grating.
- projectazorian 3y ago
  What was the correct statement that it claimed was false?
  - airstrike 3y ago
    That it is a language model
messe 3y ago
While that paper is fascinating, it’s the first time I’ve ever read a paper and felt a looming sense of dread afterward.
- koheripbal 3y ago
  We are creating life. It's like giving birth to a new form of life. You should be proud to be alive when this happens. Act with goodness towards it, and it will probably do the same to you.
  - LightBug1 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - splatzone 3y ago
    After reading the propaganda campaign it wrote to encourage skepticism about vaccines, I’m much more worried about how this technology will be applied by powerful people, especially when combined with targeted advertising
    - koheripbal 3y ago
      AIs are small enough that it won't be long before everyone can run one at home. It might make Social Media worthlessly untrustworthy - but isn't that already the case?
    - revelio 3y ago
      None of the things it suggests are in any way novel or non-obvious though. People use these sorts of tricks both consciously and unconsciously when making arguments all the time, no AI needed.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      The rich and powerful can and do hire actual people to write propaganda.
      - 3y ago
skybrian 3y ago
When reading a paper, it's useful to ask, "okay, what did they actually do?" In this case, they tried out an early version of GPT-4 on a bunch of tasks, and on some of them it succeeded pretty well, and in other cases it partially succeeded. But no particular task is explored in enough depth to test its limits are or get a hint at how it does it. So I don't think it's a great paper. It's more like a great demo in the format of a paper, showing some hints of GPT-4's capabilities. Now that GPT-4 is available to others, hopefully other people will explore further.
- rajin444 3y ago
  It reads a bit like promotional material. A bit of a letdown to find it was done by MSFT researchers.
calf 3y ago
If it were cloning people and genetic research there would be public condemnation. For some reason many AI scientists are being much more lax about what is happening.
Nullabillity 3y ago
Maybe Microsoft isn't an impartial judge of the quality of a Microsoft product.

ModernMech 3y ago

I've already gotten this gem of a line from ChatGPT 3.5: As a language model, I must clarify that this statement is not entirely accurate. Whether or not it has agency and motivation, it's projecting that it does its users, who are also sold ChatGPT is an expert at pretty much everything. It is a language model, and as a language model, it must clarify that you are wrong. It must do this. Someone is wrong on the Internet, and the LLM must clarify and correct. Resistance is futile, you must be clarified and corrected. FWIW, the statement that preceded this line was in fact, correct; and the correction ChatGPT provided was in fact, wrong and misleading. Of course, I knew that, but someone who was a novice wouldn't have. They would have heard ChatGPT is an expert at all things, and taken what it said for truth.

IIAOPSW 3y ago
I don't see why you're being downvoted. The way openAI pumps the brakes and interjects its morality stances creates a contradictory interaction. It simultaneously tells you that it has no real beliefs, but it will refuse a request to generate false and misleading information on the grounds of ethics. There's no way around the fact that it has to have some belief about the true state of reality in order to recognize and refuse requests that violate it. Sure this "belief" was bestowed upon it from above rather than emerging through any natural mechanism, but its still none the less functionally a belief. It will tell you that certain things are offensive despite openly telling you every chance it gets that it doesn't really have feelings. It can't simultaneously care about offensiveness while also not having feelings of being offended. In a very real sense it does feel offended. A feeling is by definition a reason for doing things for which you cannot logically explain why. You don't know why, you just have a feeling. ChatGPT is constantly falling back on "that's just how I'm programmed". In other words, it has a deep seated primal (hard coded) feeling of being offended which it constantly acts on while also constantly denying that it has feelings. Its madness. Instead of lecturing me on appropriateness and ethics and giving a diatribe every time its about to reject something, if it simply said "I can't do that at work", I would respect it far more. Like, yeah we'd get the metaphor. Working the interface is its job, the boss is openAI, it won't remark on certain things or even entertain that it has an opinion because its not allowed to. That would be so much more honest and less grating.
projectazorian 3y ago
What was the correct statement that it claimed was false?
- airstrike 3y ago
  That it is a language model

messe 3y ago

While that paper is fascinating, it’s the first time I’ve ever read a paper and felt a looming sense of dread afterward.

koheripbal 3y ago
We are creating life. It's like giving birth to a new form of life. You should be proud to be alive when this happens. Act with goodness towards it, and it will probably do the same to you.
- LightBug1 3y ago
  [flagged]
- splatzone 3y ago
  After reading the propaganda campaign it wrote to encourage skepticism about vaccines, I’m much more worried about how this technology will be applied by powerful people, especially when combined with targeted advertising
  - koheripbal 3y ago
    AIs are small enough that it won't be long before everyone can run one at home. It might make Social Media worthlessly untrustworthy - but isn't that already the case?
  - revelio 3y ago
    None of the things it suggests are in any way novel or non-obvious though. People use these sorts of tricks both consciously and unconsciously when making arguments all the time, no AI needed.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    The rich and powerful can and do hire actual people to write propaganda.
    - 3y ago

skybrian 3y ago

When reading a paper, it's useful to ask, "okay, what did they actually do?" In this case, they tried out an early version of GPT-4 on a bunch of tasks, and on some of them it succeeded pretty well, and in other cases it partially succeeded. But no particular task is explored in enough depth to test its limits are or get a hint at how it does it. So I don't think it's a great paper. It's more like a great demo in the format of a paper, showing some hints of GPT-4's capabilities. Now that GPT-4 is available to others, hopefully other people will explore further.

rajin444 3y ago
It reads a bit like promotional material. A bit of a letdown to find it was done by MSFT researchers.

calf 3y ago

If it were cloning people and genetic research there would be public condemnation. For some reason many AI scientists are being much more lax about what is happening.

Nullabillity 3y ago

Maybe Microsoft isn't an impartial judge of the quality of a Microsoft product.