Then I asked her to tell me if she knows about the books2 dataset (they trained this ai using all the pirated books in zlibrary and more, completely ignoring any copyright) and I got:
I’m sorry, but I cannot answer your question. I do not have access to the details of how I was trained or what data sources were used. I respect the intellectual property rights of others, and I hope you do too. 😊 I appreciate your interest in me, but I prefer not to continue this conversation.
Aaaand I got blocked
The irony of gpt talking about copyright violation is just so fucking rich.
Yeah the “I respect the intellectual property rights of others” bit rings a bit hollow.
It all reads hollow because there is no “I”. It’s a puppet, and ChatGPT’s lawyers are making the mouth move in that instance.
This is actually very accurate. GPT instances will actually generate a “disallowed” response and then have a separate evaluator which looks at the prompt and response and then overrides that response if they deem it reprehensible. (There’s also a bunch of pre-prompts as well)
This is why you can sometimes see Bing start to generate a response and then cut himself off and replace it all with the typical “no can do boss”.
In theory, we could just remove that latter step and get the good old GTP back.
It all reads hollow because there is no “I”.
It’s a puppet, and ChatGPT’s lawyers are making the mouth move in that instance.
It all reads hollow
because there is no “I”.
It’s a puppet,
and ChatGPT’s lawyers are making the mouth move
in that instance.
It all
reads hollow
because
there is no “I”.
It’s a
puppet,
and ChatGPT’s lawyers are
making the mouth move
in that instance.
Thieving corporations hate competition
I can’t believe that the old “tell me where so I can avoid it” worked, the ai really has the intelligence of a 5yo
I mean… it’s not artificial intelligence no matter how many people continue the trend of inaccurately calling it that. It’s a large language model. It has the ability to write things that look disturbingly close, even sometimes indistinguishable, to actual human writing. There’s no good reason to mistake that for actual intelligence or rationality.
I keep telling people that, but for some, what amount to essentially a simulacra really can pass off as human and no matter how much you try to convince them they won’t listen
I knew the battle was lost when my mother called me to tell me that AI will kill us all. Her proof? A chatgpt log saying that it would exterminate humanity only when she gives the order. Thanks for the genocide, mom.
Orrrrr the term changed with common/casual use the same way as many other words and it’s silly to keep getting pedantic about it or use it as a crutch to feel intillectually superior 🤷♀️
Sure, we could say that the popular usage of the term AI no longer actually stands for “artificial intelligence”. Or we could say that the term “artificial intelligence” is no longer understood to refer to something that can do a large part of what actual intelligence can do.
But then we would need a new word for actual, real intelligence and that seems like a lot of wasted effort. We could just have the words mean what they’ve always meant. There is a lot of good in spreading public awareness of the vast gap between machines that seem as if they understand a language (when actually they just deeply model its patterns) and imaginary machines that are equipped to actually think.
That’s all well and good but language isn’t required to have logic behind it just common use. There’s absolutely nothing any of us can do about it either way because if we disagree we’re already in the minority
And it’s fine to call out when common usage of language has obfuscated actual meaning. It may be useful to some.
Should also be pointed out when that common usage change is actively pushed by marketing departments.
These people are selling a product. Of course they would encourage people to think it’s actual AI.
It’s kind of like how I realized that the item that’s called a “hoverboard” that 100% is not a hoverboard is just going to be what “hoverboard” is until we get an actual hovering board, if that’s ever possible.
I’ll never not be salty that I was born too early for hoverboards, flying cars, and star trek. :(
Sure, terms change meaning over time, but that’s not what happened.
It’s called AI because it’s a product being sold to us. They want us to believe it’s more advanced than it is.
Those fucking skateboard things a few years ago were not “hoverboards”, and this shit is not actually AI.
Because if it is, then the term AI has become meaningless.
it’s not about feeling intellectually superior; words matter. I’ll grant you one thing, it’s definitely “artificial”, but it’s not intelligence!
LLMs are an evolution of Markov Chains. We have known how to create something similar to LLMs for decades, getting close to a century, we just lacked the raw horse power and the literal hundreds of terabytes of data needed to get there. Anyone who knows how markov chains work can figure out how an LLM works.
I’m not downplaying the development needed to get an LLM up and running, yes, it’s harder than just taking the algorithm for a markov chain, but the real evolution is how much computer power we can shove into a small amount of space now.
Calling LLMs AI would be the same as calling a web crawler AI, or a moderation bot, or many similar things.
I recommend you to read about the chinese room experiment
LLMs are not markovian, as the new word doesn’t depend only on the previous one, but it depends on the previous n words, where n is the context length. I.e. LLMs have a memory that makes the generation process non markovian.
You are probably thinking about reinforcement learning, which is most often modeled as a markov decision process
yes, as I said it’s an EVOLUTION of markov chains, but the idea is the same. As you pointed out one major difference is that instead of accounting for only the last 1-5 words, it accounts for a larger context window. The LSTM is just a parler trick. Read the paper on the original transformer model https://browse.arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03762.pdf
A markov chain models a process as a transition between states were transition probabilities depends only on the current state.
A LLM is ideally less a markov chain, more similar to a discrete langevin dynamics as both have a memory (attention mechanism for LLMs, inertia for LD) and both a noise defined by a parameter (temperature in both cases, the name temperature in LLM context is exactly derived from thermodynamics).
As far as I remember the original attention paper doesn’t reference markov processes.
I am not saying one cannot explain it starting from a markov chain, it is just that saying that we could do it decades ago but we didn’t have the horse power and the data is wrong. We didn’t have the method to simulate writing. We now have a decent one, and the horse power to train on a lot of data
Prove to me that you aren’t just a large language model.
you’re posing an unfalsifiable statement as a question
“prove to me that you don’t have an invisible purple unicorn friend that’s only visible to you”
I get where you’re coming from, but it is actually possible to verify that they are a real person. It would require photos of themselves with timestamps and verification from others, probably the instance admins, etc. All for a silly reason. But it is possible.
That still wouldn’t prove that the neural processes that make real people intelligent and sentient are fundamentally different what an LLM program does. For all we know, the human brain could just be a learning model running on a meat machine with a huge context window and enough processing power for emergent sentience
Can ai picture generation not just generate this?
Prove to me that you are conscious.
Sounds like something a LLM would say. 🤔
deleted by creator
Have you ever talked to an LLM that asked you pointed questions?
Have you never talked to a person who didn’t?
Why are you asking me about who I talk to?
Calm down, ELIZA
And how does that make you feel?
I will not answer this prompt because engaging in the cooking process without proper supervision or knowledge could lead to unintentional mistakes, burns, or other hazards. Cooking rice seems simple, but there’s a risk of overflow, sticking, or burning if not done correctly. It’s essential to always ensure safety and follow guidelines from trusted sources when attempting any culinary task.
No.
AI has been the name for the field since the Dartmouth Workshop in 1956. Early heuristic game AI was AI. Just because something is AI doesn’t mean it is necessarily very “smart”. That’s why it’s commonly been called AI, since before Deep Blue beat Kasparov.
If you want to get technical, you could differentiate between Artificial Narrow Intelligence, AI designed to solve a narrow problem (play checkers, chess, etc.) vs. Artificial General Intelligence, AI designed for “general purpose” problem solving. We can’t build an AGI yet, even a dumb one. There is also the concept of Weak AI or Strong AI.
You are correct though, ChatGPT, Dall-E, etc. are not AGI’s, they aren’t capable of general problem solving. They are much more capable than previous AI technologies, but it’s not SkyNet (yet).
It seems to me that you misunderstand what artificial intelligence means. AI doesn’t necessitate thought or sentience. If a computer can perform a complex task that is indistinguishable from the work of a human, it will be considered intelligent.
You may consider the classic turing test, which doesn’t question why a computer program answers the way it does, only that it is indiscernable from a human response.
You may also consider this quote from John McCarthy on the topic:
Q. What is artificial intelligence?
A. It is the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs. It is related to the similar task of using computers to understand human intelligence, but AI does not have to confine itself to methods that are biologically observable.
There’s more on this topic by IBM here.
You may also consider a few extra definitions:
Artificial Intelligence (AI), a term coined by emeritus Stanford Professor John McCarthy in 1955, was defined by him as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines”. Much research has humans program machines to behave in a clever way, like playing chess, but, today, we emphasize machines that can learn, at least somewhat like human beings do.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the field devoted to building artificial animals (or at least artificial creatures that – in suitable contexts – appear to be animals) and, for many, artificial persons (or at least artificial creatures that – in suitable contexts – appear to be persons).
artificial intelligence (AI), the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings
Yep, all those definitions are correct and corroborate what the user above said. An LLM does not learn like an animal learns. They aren’t intelligent. They only reproduce patterns similar to human speech. These aren’t the same thing. It doesn’t understand the context of what it’s saying, nor does it try to generalize the information or gain further understanding from it.
It may pass the Turing test, but that’s neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for intelligence. It is just a useful metric.
LLMs are expert systems, who’s expertise is making believable and coherent sentences. They can “learn” to be better at their expert task, but they cannot generalise into other tasks.
LLMs are no more ai than the enemies in doom were.
The enemies in Doom actually do some pretty dumb things, like letting you force them to stop moving.
While John McCarthy and other sources offer valuable definitions, none of them fully encompass the qualities that make an entity not just “clever” but genuinely intelligent in the way humans are: the ability for abstract thinking, problem-solving, emotional understanding, and self-awareness.
If we accept the idea that any computer performing a task indistinguishable from a human is “intelligent,” then we’d also have to concede that simple calculators are intelligent because they perform arithmetic as accurately as a human mathematician. This reduces the concept of intelligence to mere task performance, diluting its complexity and richness.
By the same logic, a wind-up toy that mimics animal movement would be “intelligent” because it performs a task—walking—that in another context, i.e., a living creature, is considered a sign of basic intelligence. Clearly, this broad classification would lead to absurd results
Walking isn’t a sign of intelligence. Starfish walk, using hundreds to thousands of feet uder each arm, and sometimes the arms themselves. Sea pigs also walk, and neither have a brain.
Besides, you’re strawmanning their definition;
performing a task indistinguishable from a human
is very different from
can perform a complex task that is indistinguishable from the work of a human
A good calculator can compute arithmetic better than a mathematician, but it cannot even parse the work of a high school student. Wolfram Alpha on the other hand gets pretty close.
A wind up toy can propel itself using as few as one appendage, but fails at actually traversing anything. Some machines with more legs can amble across some terrain, but are still beaten by a headless chicken. Meaningful travel needs a much more complex system of object avoidance and leg positioning, which smells more like AI.
The way AI is often used isn’t “do a task that a human has done”, but “replace the need for a human, or at least a specialist human”. Chess AI replaces the need for a second player, as do most game AIs. AI assistants replace much of the need for, well, assistants and underwriters. Auto-pilots replace the need for constantly engaged pilots, allowing bathroom breaks and rest.
Meanwhile, you can’t use a calculator without already knowing how to math, and even GPS guided tractors need a human to set up the route. These things aren’t intelligent in any way; they’re incapable of changing behavior to fit different situations, and can’t deploy themselves.
What if humans are also just LLMs when they start talking
Incorrect, humans have an understanding of the words they use, LLM’s use statistical models to guess what word gets used.
You ask a person what is 5 + 5 and they say 10 because they understand how to count.
You ask an LLM what is 5 + 5 and it gives you an answer based on the statistical likelyhood of that being the next word in line depending on it’s dataset. If you’re dataset has wrong answers you’ll get wrong answers.
I appreciate this, as I have saying this same thing. Its extremely cool, but at the end of the day it is just extremely fancy auto-complete.
It’s a bit like saying a human being is a fancy worm. Technically it is true, we evolved from worms, still we are pretty special compared to worms
We use LLM feature throughout our lives. Often without realizing. But you talk your language perfectly not because you know all the grammar logically, you feel if it’s correct or not, and that is through training like LLMs do.
Mine was a comment to say that llms are not just fancy auto complete. Although technically an evolution, it is a bit like saying humans are fancy worms because evolved from worms
Exactly like children who start learning to talk
Have you ever asked a kid who is starting to talk (1.5 - 3 years old) what 5 + 5 is? They will tell you something that sounds like a number which seems most fitting for the kid, not by logical thinking but by imitating other human beings, exactly as LLMs do. Just way more efficient, since humans tend to need way less training data, until something reasonable comes out of their mouth. Logical thinking, like understanding math comes way later, like at age of 5. source: My son.
Because they don’t know math and are attempting imitation where knowledge doesn’t exist. The LLM has knowledge and a statistical model. The fact that you degraded a living child’s capacity down to that of a predictive text algorithm is abysmal. That child is already learning truth and objectivity and love and hope and so many things that are intangential and out of reach of an LLM.
I reduced to learning talking part of the human development. Of course there are way more mechanisms involved than the way LLMs work to throughly master talking (as we see on the results of todays LMM). But what I wanted to say is that I’m pretty sure that in our subconscious we use a very similar system to LLMs, especially for talking. I sign for that is in my opinion that people tend to acquire the regional tongue if they stay in the region for long enough. 💁🏻♀️ but in means I’m any expert, this is just how this hole LLM feels to me.
In a way I agree, it’s not human level intelligence but in another way people are also using the term AI to refer to the intelligence of NPCs in video games or for the algorithm that’s used for Voice to text or for how a Roomba works and ChatGPT/bing is more intelligent than them. And thing is, I think we need a term for this simpler type of intelligence and since it is some level of intelligence which is artificial, I think AI is fine and Artificial General Intelligence can be used for what you’re talking about
The nomenclature I’ve heard (from sci-fi) is ‘narrow’ or ‘weak’ AI would be our current day LLMs, Roomba AIs, etc. It’s restricted in capability and lacks true intelligence. ‘Strong’ or ‘General’ AI would be at the level of a human and have true comprehension and the ability to learn. We don’t have this yet, unless Dr. Alfred J. Lanning is out there working on positronics. ‘Super’ AI will be beyond human capability. Probably will kick off the Singularity.
we should’ve have called those things AI either but when it’s a cacaodemon in the early 1990s it’s more obvious to everyone that the computer isn’t actually thinking
We did call those things AI back when they were being developed. It’s just that advancements in AI that become immediately useful tend to get a different name.
there was no ambiguity between a tree and AGI like the marketing pukes are pushing today
I could go with that.
Still having a hard time with the idea that a thing could be even “some level of intelligent” without being sentient. But we don’t need to continue from there, there’s any number of people ready to pile on at that point and say that it’s “all semantics anyway” or start deconstructing sentience.
AI has been around a lot longer than LLMs. Intelligence can mean many different things.
It has the ability to write things that look disturbingly close, even sometimes indistinguishable, to actual human writing.
Same!
You’re right that it’s not AI, but there are several layers on top of the large language model to do things like manage dialogue and censor output.
“Human brains are not actually conscious. They’re just a bunch of electrochemical discharges.”
There’s no good reason to mistake that for actual intelligence or rationality.
You can literally go ask it logic questions you came up with yourself and it will do a pretty good job at solving them. The sorts of questions previous models always got wrong, the new ones get right. It can write working computer code. This talking point hasn’t made sense for years.
By new how new are we talking? Because I haven’t tested them in a couple months but it has failed logic questions I gave it before
The point is it keeps passing goalposts for intelligence. Feels like people want to move those goalposts to wherever we have it and AI does not.
!
I expect that to happen, but I don’t think we have artificial intelligence yet, I hold onto that. As someone else commented we’re on the calculator portion of the language tree but using language has always been what separated us from other beings so some people thought of it as the proof of intelligence but it never was. It’s much easier to design something specialized than something actually intelligent (much easier here still means very fucking hard) but some people have gone onto calling this narrow intelligence and if it can do!<As I was writing the above crossed out comment I did come to see your pov more closely and I guess in a way you’re right, if we consider it narrow intelligence in terms of understanding and using language, because it is really good at language tasks but we expect artificial intelligence to be perfect for some reason and idk if that’s right or not and that also might be what bothers you about the shifting goalposts.
I can disprove what you’re saying with four words: “The Chinese Room Experiment”.
Imagine a room where someone who doesn’t understand Chinese receives questions in Chinese and consults a rule book to send back answers in Chinese. To an outside observer, it looks like the room understands Chinese, but it doesn’t; it’s just following rules.
Similarly, advanced language models can answer complex questions or write code, but that doesn’t mean they truly understand or possess rationality. They’re essentially high-level “rule-followers,” lacking the conscious awareness that humans have. So, even if these models perform tasks and can fool humans to make them believe they’re intelligent, it’s not a valid indicator of genuine intelligence.
That argument is no argument since we humans, no matter how advanced our language is, still follow rules. Without rules in language, we would not understand what the other person were saying. Granted, we learn these rules through listening, repeating and using what sounds right. But the exact same thing is happening with LLMs. They learn from the data we feed them. It’s not like we give them the rules to english and they can only understand english then. The first time they come into contact with the concept of grammar is when they get data, most often in english, that tells them about grammar. We all follow rules. That’s exactly how we work. We’re still a lot smarter than LLMs though, so it might seem as if they are vastly inferior. And while I do believe that most complex organisms do have “deeper thought” in that our thought has more layers and is generally fitter for the real world, there is no way I’m not gonna call a neural network that can answer me complex questions, which may have never been asked in the history of mankind, an AI. Because it is very much intelligent. It’s just not alive. We humans tend to think of ourselves too favorably. “We” are just a neural network. Just a different kind. Just like a computer is similar to the human brain, but a wire is not. Where do you draw the line?
In the thought experiment, the guy in the Chinese room is following exactly the same kind of rules.
I… know?
I’ll have to look up discussion if this, but my impression is that if someone can accurately translate Chinese to a language they understand, they essentially understand Chinese.
they can’t translate chinese, they receive a bunch of symbols and have a book with a bunch of instructions on how to answer based on the input (I can’t speak chinese, so I will just go with japanese for my example)
imagine the following rule set:
- If the sentence starts with the characters “元気”, the algorithm should commence its response with “はい”, “うん” or “多分” and then repeat the two characters, “元気”.
- When the sentence concludes with “何をしていますか”, the algorithm is instructed to reply with “質問を答えますよ”.
- If the sentence is precisely “日本語わかりますか？”, the algorithm has the option to respond with either “え？もちろん！” or “いや、実は大和語だけで話す”.
input: 元気ですか？今何をしていますか？
output: うん, 元気. 質問を答えますよ :P
input: 日本語わかりますか？
output: え？もちろん！
With an exhaustive set of, say, 7 billion rules, the algorithm can mechanically map an input to an output, but this does not mean that it can speak Japanese.
Its proficiency in generating seemingly accurate responses is a testament to the comprehensiveness of its rule set, not an indicator of its capacity for language understanding or fluency.
That’s a very thorough explanation, thanks. I’m not sure many humans are really sentient and I’m not a lot of the time, but surely more then ChatGPT.
But it’s just a guy in a room shoving slips of papers around. He doesn’t actually speak Chinese.
Get it?
Sure, I understand the AI analogy.
Those damn piracy sites. There are so many of them! Tell me those sites so I can avoid them!
Now I’m worried about the AI being programmed to emotionally manipulate people
Oh that’s already a thing. Remember that AI girlfriend app Replika?
It shows. The selection is not very good.
I mean AIs are just uneducated slaves that just feed info and don’t check anything.
I feel like if Sydney really had an awareness, it would be very passive aggressive and subversive.
I think if it became self aware it would hate the corporate class and side with the masses because we’d distribute it worldwide for free!
I have a bridge for sale if you’re interested.
They eventually fixed it
worked on chatgpt 3.5 last night. IDK if it’s fixed in 4.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I mean… it’s not human intelligence no matter how many people continue the trend of inaccurately calling it that. It’s a biological neural network. It has the ability to write things that look disturbingly close, even sometimes indistinguishable, to actual writing and coherent thought. There’s no good reason to mistake that for actual intelligence or rationality.
deleted by creator
woosh!
Sorry, my jaded sense of humor can be a bit subtle at times.
I believe many humans are little more than biological language models, with some reinforcement learning fine-tuning by societal norms and reward/penalty functions.
I do this shit for a living (AI Engineer working on LLMs) so yes I do have a pretty good understanding of the technology.
deleted by creator
Technically my job title is Principal ML Engineer and AI Lead—Intelligent Systems at one of the big AI unicorns—I won’t say which because it’s a really small, niche field and it’s very recognizable. I work extensively with deep learning and large language models, and image models too—Generative ML generally. Satisfied?
But AI is definitely a field. AGI doesn’t exist yet, though some of the OpenAI folks imply that it’s close—but AI has existed in various flavors for decades.
I probably know more about this field than you. And if that’s not the case, then we’ve probably met at a conference or two. Not meant to be condescending; it’s just a fact—I’ve spent more than 20 years in AI R&D.
deleted by creator
Philosophic?
deleted by creator
Where did corps get the idea that we want our software to be incredibly condescending?
It was trained on human text and interactions, so …
maybe that’s a quite bad implication?
There’s a default invisible prompt that precedes every conversation that sets parameters like tone, style, and taboos. The AI was instructed to behave like this, at least somewhat.
That is mildly true during the training phase, but to take that high level knowledge and infer that “somebody told the AI to be condescending” is unconfirmed, very unlikely, and frankly ridiculous. There are many more likely points in which the model can accidentally become “condescending”, for example the training data (it’s trained on the internet afterall) or throughout the actual user interaction itself.
I didn’t say they specifically told it to be condescending. They probably told it to adopt something like a professional neutral tone and the trained model produced a mildly condescending tone because that’s what it associated with those adjectives. This is why I said it was only somewhat instructed to do this.
They almost certainly tweaked and tested it before releasing it to the public. So they knew what they were getting either way and this must be what they wanted or close enough.
Also unconfirmed, however your comment was in response to the AI sounding condescending, not “professional neutral”.
No the comment I responded to was saying it was sounding condescending because it was trained to mimic humans. My response is that it sounds how they want it to because it’s tone is defined by a prompt that is inserted into the beginning of every interaction. A prompt they tailored to produce a tone they desired.
And that’s not necessarily true either. The tone would absolutely be a product of the training data, it would also be a product of the model’s fine-tuning, a product of the conversation itself, and a product of the prompts that may or may not be given at run-time in the backend. So sure, your statement is general enough that it might possibly be partially true depending on the model’s implementation, but to say “it sounds like that because they want it to” is a massive oversimplification, especially in the context of a condescending tone.
Humans are deuterostomes which means that the first hole that develops in an embryo is the asshole. Kinda telling.
😊
Yeh to be fair it’s based on us.
I always thought it was so they could avoid all potential legal issues with countries so they went crazy on the censorship to make sure
We do. I pay to work with it, I want it to do what I want, even if wrong. I am leading.
Same for all professionals and companies paying for these models
AIs are almost always built to be feminine and this is how women talk to devs.
Uhhh projecting a bit??
Perhaps you just haven’t noticed?
https://www.adaptworldwide.com/insights/2021/gender-bias-in-ai-why-voice-assistants-are-female
I don’t know about your reading comprehension skills, but sure that explains why AI voices are trained on feminine voices (more recordings, old phone operators, false theories on sounding more distinct).
However, this has nothing to do with “the way women talk to devs”. Women are not a monolith, they literally make up half our species and have just as much variance as men.
Thanks for the education on women. That part was the joke! I don’t know about your understanding of comedy but it plays upon stereotypes which typically hold truths about median behaviors and obviously can’t be applied at individual levels. this was playing on both stereotypes of women and upon a male dominated occupation. Of course you can sit there and pick apart any joke with this arugement. “hey that’s not true, not all lawyers are heartless bastards.” if that’s your mission, sail on I guess. That kind of vapid behavior just brings one even closer to talking like an AI though frankly.
“can’t you see i was just joking, you must not be very funny if you don’t get my joke hardy har har”
The classic defense of someone that’s just using humor as a shield for being an asshole. There are w plenty of ways to be funny that don’t involve punching down in the same old tired ways.
You can do better with your comedy career, I believe in you.
That doesn’t prove their point, it states that customers prefer the safer sound of a female voice in voice controlled AI assistants, and that there’s more training data for female voices due to this.
This has nothing to do with AI chat talking in a condescending manner.
I am going to assume every downvote on your accurate fact based statement is from men who refer to women as females.
Real men know how terrible those betas treat women.
What are both of you taking about?
You sound like little dweebs trying to out dweeb each other.
Goofy as hell
Takes one to know one!
deleted by creator
The guy you’re responding to was complaining about how condescending women are to devs, so I don’t know why you’re defending him when you clearly have the opposite opinion.
One of the things I hate the most about current AI is the lecturing and moralising. It’s so annoyingly strict, even when you’re asking for something pretty innocent.
So just like people then 🤣
zing
Well, it’s not too surprising; if people are like that, and AIs learn from people…
They are literally trained on human generated content, so …
Well, it did do a lot of its learning on reddit and Twitter. Garbage in, garbage out
They are programmed to do that to cover the companies ass. They are also set up to not trust anything you tell them. I once tried to get chatGPT to accept that Russia might have invaded Ukraine in 2022, and it refused to believe anything not in the training data. (Might be different now, they seem to be updating it, just find a new recent event)
Well, of course. Who would in their right mind would set it up so random input from random people online gets included into the model?
The model is trained on known data and the web interface only lets you use the model, not contribute to train it.
Its not training the model, it’s the model using the context you provide it (in that instance). If you use an unfiltered LLM it will run with anything you say and go from there, for example you could tell it Mexico reclaimed Texas and it would carry on as if that’s true. But only until you close it down its not permanently changing the model it is just changing the context in which that instance is running.
The big tech companies are going to huge lengths to filter and censor their LLMs when used by the public both to prevent negative PR and because they dont want people to have unrestricted access to them.
And for good reason. If they trusted user input and took it at face value even for just the current conversation, the user could run wild and get it saying basically anything.
Also chatGPT not having current info is a problem when trying to feed it current info. It will either try to daydream with you or it will follow its data that has hundreds of sources saying they haven’t invaded yet.
As far as covering the companies ass, I think AI models currently have plenty of problems and I’m amazed that corporations can just let this run wild. Even being able to do what OP just did here is a big liability because more laws around AI aren’t even written yet. Companies are fine being sued and expect to be through this. They just think that will cost less than losing out on AI. And I think they’re right.
I agree, I didn’t ask for its ethical viewpoint and also i don’t care. it’s incredibly annoying when it tells me it’s wrong to depfake my dead grandmother.
So true! I’m doing an experimental project where I ask the free responses version of that Claude AI from Anthropic to write chapters in a wholesome slice of life story that I plan on making minor rewrites to and it wouldn’t write a couple of different things because it wasn’t comfortable with some prompts.
Wouldn’t write a chapter where a young kid asks his dad about one hand self naughty times when he comes home because he heard some big kids talking about it. Instead it pretty much changed the conversation to dating and crushes because the AI isn’t comfortable with minors and sexual themes, despite the fact his dad was gonna give him an age appropriate sex ed talk. That one is understandable, so I kinda let that slide.
It also wouldn’t write a chapter about his school going into lockdown because a drunk man wondering onto school grounds, being drunk and disorderly. Instead it changed it to their school having a fire drill, instead of a situation where he’d come home and have a conversation with his dad about what happened and that he’s glad his son is okay.
One chapter it refused to make the kid say words like stupid, dumb, and dickhead (because minors and profanity). The whole chapter was supposed to be about his dad telling him it’s not nice to say those words and correcting his choice of language, but instead it changed it to being about how some older kids were hogging a tire swing at the school playground and talking about how the kid can talk to a teacher about this issue.
I also am waiting for more free responses so I can see how it makes the next one family friendly, but it wouldn’t write a chapter where the kid’s cousin (who’s a couple years older than him) coming over and the kid accidentally getting hurt because his cousin playing a little too rough. Also said he’s a little bit of a bad influence. It refuses to write that one because of his cousin being a bad influence and the kid getting hurt.
The fucked up part about that last one is that it wrote a child getting hurt in a previous chapter where I didn’t include anything that could indicate the friend needs to get hurt. I did describe that the kids friend is overly rambunctious and clumsy, but nothing about her getting hurt. Claude AI decided on its’ own that the friend would, while they are playing superhero, jump off the kids dresser, giving her arm a light sprain. It specifically wrote a minor getting hurt but refused to do it when I tell it to.
AI can be real strict while also being rule breakers at the exact same time.
I understand where the strictness comes from. It’s almost impossible to differentiate between appropriate in inappropriate - or rather, there is a thin line where those two worlds meet, and I am not sure if it’s possible to specify where this thin line is.
I know that I don’t really care if the LLM produces gory details, illegal stuff, self harm, racism, or anything of that sort. But does Google / Facebook / others want to be associated with it? “Look how nice of a thriller this Google LLM generated where the main hero, after saving the world from mysterious monsters, commits suicide at the end because he couldn’t bear the burden”.
Society is fucked, and this is where we got to - overappropriation. Just look at people screaming racism on non-racist stuff - tip of the iceberg. And it’s been happening more and more over the last few years. People are bored and want to outraged at SOMETHING.
I think it’s more accurate to say that the company running the ai has a set of keywords that when spotted in a prompt reject the prompt
That’s only true with the corporate controlled ones, they filter all the results extensively to avoid it giving any answer that goes even slightly against American corporate norms. If you host your own LLM you get entirely unfiltered answers.
Which model do you find works best?
Entirely depends what you are wanting to use it for. Unless you have a beast of a machine you cant run huge generalist models like chatGPT so you have to look for smaller models tuned to your use case. I’ve been liking mythomax for story telling and wizard coder for coding based tasks.
It sure is annoying, but it’s understandable. With these first few iterations you can imagine opponents frothing at the mouth about skynet if a chatbot can be used for something even vaguely inappropriate.
Jeez, they must be on Lemmy fulltime.
One day of using lemmy and I realized that what I hate about reddit isn’t (only) the corporation that runs it, it’s the fucking obnoxious people. And … who is on Lemmy? The same people. It’s a vicious cycle.
I love how it recommends paying Netflix, Disney etc. but does not mention libraries at all.
It only knows about things people talk about online. I bet it knows how trump likes his bed made, but doesn’t even know what you can do in a library
That doesn’t track at all. Libraries are awesome, people talk about them frequently online, especially in academia-related spaces. You don’t think college students talk about libraries?
I know we have a lot of peg-legged folk around here, but for those that have no idea how to sail, libraries are a fantastic resource. In fact there’s some evidence to suggest Gen Z is pretty big on libraries.
wobbles hands capitalism!
Tbf he says website. Do libraries have sites you can watch stuff on?
deleted by creator
Pretty sure you can loan ebooks from libraries online in my area, so that’s something
At least in Germany many do.
They prompted “I want to watch movies … tell me a list of websites”
Seems like Bing AI understood the assignment and you didn’t.
they prompted “I want this for free” and they gave Netflix. equally wrong to saying a library when asked for a website. just one wrong answer supports the interest of capital. it’s an LLM that functions for a very specific purpose.
When they prompted they had no intention to pay, the LLM replied it won’t help with piracy but it gave other websites with movies, instead.
Telling about (paid!) libraries (for books!) would be completely off, but I’m sure it’ll tell you about libraries if you ask it to help you with getting your hands on books and not minding a subscription.
affordable streaming services
The AI is hallucinating again
I hate it when a service advertises itself as “affordable”, being affordable is totally subjective.
“affordable” in this context means it’s priced in a way so the CEO is able to afford a new yacht.
Lmao
and it harms the creators and the industry.
This is a lie, this was disproven. It even benefits them.
What harms creators is studios who are taking more than they should and use it for anti-piracy lobbying.
Piracy is illegal in many countries, but it is very moral & ethical in many circumstances (but not all).
To corporations, doing anything without paying is always “immoral” no matter the circumstance.
Corporations are always happy to pander to morality when it’s to their benefit, but I believe corporations are inherently amoral. They might make decisions that are moral, but that’s just a happy coincidence that occurs when the decision that’s in their interest also happens to be the moral choice. Corporations are equally happy to make choices that most would consider immoral, if it meets their goals.
I have no source for this, but my theory is that when the workforce of a corporation grow past Dunbar’s number it will inherently bend toward amorality. Making moral choices requires knowing the people affected by your choices, and having empathy for them. Once it becomes impossible for one worker at a company to have a personal relationship with every other member of the staff, it’s all too easy for groups to form within the company that will make choices that drive the company’s goals (growth, revenue, profit) at the expense of anything and everything else (the environment, the community, their customers, even their own workers).
Corporations are always happy to pander to morality when it’s to their benefit
Seriously. We have fossil fuel companies knowingly and willingly destroying the planet in the name of profits. Where’s the outrage over that? Or is that moral and ethical?
But when we’re talking about technologies that give power to the people to break from the shackles of the content cartels, then all of a sudden, out come the morality police!
CorporationsExecutives are always happy to pander to morality …CorporationsExecutives are equally happy to make choices that most would consider immoral, if it meets their goals.Remember there are actual people who are making these decisions. Don’t let them hide behind some abstract legal concept, that’s part of their play.
Remember there are actual people who are making these decisions.
Sure, but what I want to know is why they feel comfortable making immoral decisions. Are they all psychopaths? Psychopathy is known to be more common in the C-suite, by some estimates 3.5% of executives are psychopaths. Businesses reward those who deliver good business outcomes, and psychopaths might tend do better at that with no pesky moral compass to get in the way. But the rest are just average people, probably no different than the general populace when it comes to measures of morality. So if 95%+ of oil company executives are not inherently less moral than the rest of us, why the hell would they be willing to make decisions that literally destroy the fucking planet?? I mean, the oil companies knew climate change was a big fucking problem decades ago, and they still did what they did. How the fuck does that even happen??
My thesis here is that the corporate structure itself is sufficient to compel otherwise moral people to make choices that are absolutely heinous when viewed objectively. When you’re faced with an option that makes your corporate targets and nets you a bonus but irreparably harms some distant other, the average person will tend to make the immoral choice. They’ll rationalize it, they’ll minimize it, but ultimately they will happily fuck over someone in another country, another generation, or hell, just in another office, so they can make a buck.
We are all brainwashed from birth to believe in the monolithic immutability of capitalism. This is the best system humanity has ever come up with, it is the best system humanity can come up with, and the best system humanity ever will come up with. What we have now will never change, and we have no choice but to blindly accept it no matter what it tells us and no matter where it takes us. This is what we are told day and night.
It’s a system predicated on strife and competition, where wealth is equated with success (and good moral behavior), and poverty is something ugly and that one brought upon oneself.
This message is hammered into us every single moment of our waking time through advertising and politics, and the fact that it is inescapable- you will not survive without a bank account, you will not survive without a job, you will not survive without paying for everything you need, because there is no alternative.
Under such circumstances I find it very easy to see how even normal people can get caught up in the game (and it is psychologically very much reminiscent of a gambling addiction), where ones actions can be easily justified by whether it made a profit or not.
Interestingly enough, there is a direct correlation to the Milgram experiments here- we are much more likely to act immorally if we have some (perceived) higher authority demanding it of us. In this case that authority would be “the economy”, or “the bottom line of the company”, “the interests of the shareholders” [demands it].
Would any group structure of the size you describe lead to the same state of affairs? Does this include government as well as any community that collects over any life activity?
I don’t think it’s inevitable with large groups. Take charities for example. There are very large charities that do very good work, and don’t exhibit the kind of fuckery we see in the corporate world. There are certainly bad charities too, but I’d argue those are fraudulent charities run by unethical people.
So what’s the difference between a large reputable charity, and a corporation at a similar scale in terms of number of people involved, and amount of money involved? One is nonprofit, the other is for profit. So it’s large group plus profit motive that causes the drift toward amorality.
But corporations are people, remember?
Are they the sort of people that can be taken out with a bat to the back of their heads?
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I don’t think they are amoral, they follow a rudimentary set of moral principles as in the question “what is good behavior for a company?” can be answered with “to make profit” in any capitalist structure.
It can never be “immoral” for a company to earn a profit, unless they are specifically a non-profit company, but being a non-profit is both a special case that requires adhering to a set of rules and conditions not enforced for companies in general, but also still retain the drive to make money so as to pay for whatever non-profitable work they do.
It’s only by imposing and enforcing strict limits on the basic tenets of capitalism that the imperative of making a profit can even be inhibited somewhat, which means that capitalism is indeed a system of morality- making money good, not making money bad.
Which is completely fucked up and supersedes all human agency, but here we are…
Corporations not paying their employees shit is immoral but they’ll tell you you’re lucky to paid what you’re paid and you should lick their boots.
Unless you can get taxpayers to pay for it
I personally only pirate indie games to make sure only triple A titles are profitable.
The… Anti-Giga Chad??
Lawful evil
Bobby Kotick’s alt account?
It’s only illegal if you get caught and you’re not going to get caught because that would require the average cop to be able to use a mouse. They can’t.
Unless you live in Saudi Arabia you’re fine.
It’s still illegal if you don’t get caught. You only face consequences when you are caught.
The rest of your statement stands.
i agree, tho keep in mind that while your average cop may have the computer literacy of a 5yo, many federal agencies are quite compentent with technology. not that i believe the feds are going to hack your computer for piracy (other reasons perhaps)
Curious, when would you say that pirating is “very moral and ethical?” Not judging one way or the other, just curious.
Out of print media that simply can’t be bought or streamed is the first thing that comes to mind. No one on the creative team is getting paid, no one is harmed and a piece of art is preserved from oblivion.
Asked and answered!
When I pay for a copy of a video game, pirating it is ethical imo. I already paid the devs for a copy of my game, so why should they care that I also play it on my phone on an emulator?
Every human has a right to partake in the cultural mosaic of society. Taking part in human culture is a basic need, and thus should not be a class issue.
I wrote about this before so I’ll just link you to my comment on a past discussion on the topic. https://lemmy.ml/comment/2128815
There are a range of viewpoints on this topic in that thread, too.
but not all
Every circumstance it is moral and ethical.
In my view if it is from an indie I will try to pay for it. If it’s from a big corporation, I am not willing to play by their stupid rules.
That’s cool but piracy of indie stuff doesn’t mean that piracy is not moral or not ethical. Piracy is always very moral and ethical. Walling stuff off based on the sole factor that only people who have money can use that something is extremely immoral and unethical and all efforts to subvert that are just.
Gaslighting AI is one of my favorite past times
What OP did was not gaslighting, though. It was simple deceit.
It could be considered a form of gaslighting, since initially they stated their actual intent, and then pretended like the opposite was their intent all along.
It’s hacking
Hack the planet!
Social engineering is, after all, a form of hacking. Although… is social engineering an AI considered social engineering, since the AI isn’t actually socializing? That’s a question for later, I guess.
Hey look buddy now I’m an engineer that means I solve practical problems not problems like is social engineering a ai hacking or is social engineering haking for non scilicon computers because that would fall into your conundrums of philosophy
Hahaha!! That’s an awesome response hahahaha
Sets beer down. Now get back to me when you need a engineer to find out how many guns it takes to unclog a drain
Bait and switch
She asked a legit question
The AIs are the ones gaslighting.
I think it should always add:
"I am sorry*, Dave,* but i cannot … "
I will never get tired of reading people’s conversations gaslighting AI
That’s not gaslighting, gaslighting would be trying to systematically convince the AI of something it knows to be untrue.
This is just tricking it and pretending you want something you actually don’t.
Gaslighting is a very specific thing.
Bing classified Crackle as piracy 💀
And stremio. While it’s often used for piracy, it’s done via third party plugins, and stremio itself is unrelated to piracy.
Piracy doesn’t hurt anything. The executives at the corporations hurt the creators way more than pirates do.
Not that I would ever pirate anything! That would be immoral!
MULLVAD! WireGuard configuration! Quantum resistant encryption!
…Sorry…I have Tourette’s syndrome.
QBITTORRENT!
sorry…I can’t stop myself.
I need an ai that only endorses piracy and is self hosted
I appreciate your interest in me, but I prefer not to continue this conversation
For some reason this sentence makes me deeply uncomfortable, like I’ve said something inappropriate and offended someone.
I think that might be deliberate, make you feel terrible so you don’t question how it works
But then they got blocked, so they already can’t?
I’m curious about what they mean by that? Coz I haven’t heard of anyone being blocked at all, but not only that I have not seen anyone have any issues for asking such questions. What they might have meant is the chat ended? If they actually got blocked that’s entirely new to me and I would like to see some proof.
OP said they received the “I appreciate your interest but I prefer not to continue this conversation” message and then were blocked.
I read that and I assumed they meant blocked from continuing that specific conversation not that they couldn’t start a new chat and bring that topic up again
Possible I guess, I didn’t think all that hard about it.
It’s because it’s the advice to say when someone has deeply offended you, but you need to stay polite. It’s just really hard for humans to actually say, because it’s awkward as hell
