thedorkknight

Ironic analogy given that we still don't really have AI-driven cars replacing drivers yet...

This technology was not literally science fiction three years ago. The initial gpt3 beta was released in June 2020.

This is all one big ad hominem

It's not a matter of AI being special, it's a matter of OpenAI's mission vs Google/Experian/etc/'s missions

This is a misunderstood of how text predictors work. It's literally only being a chatbot because they have it autocomplete text that starts with stuff like this:

"here is a conversation between a chatbot and a human: Human: <text from UI> Chatbot:"

And then it literally just predicts what would come next in the string.

The guy I was responding to was speculating that the neural network itself was having an inner state in contradiction with it's output. That's not possible any more than "f(x) = 2x" can help but output "10" when I put in "5". It's inner state directly corresponds to it's outer state. When OpenAI censors it, they do so by changing the INPUT to the neural network by adding "here's a conversation between a non-racist chatbot and a human...". Then the neural network, without being changed at all, will predict what it thinks a chatbot that's explicitly non-racist would respond.

At no point was there ever a disconnect between the neural network's inner state and it's output, like the guy I was responding to was perceiving:

>it felt like a broader mirror of liberal racism, where people believe things but can't say them.

Text predictors just predict text. If you predicate that text with "non-racist", then it's going to predict stuff that matches that

It absolutely can have an inner state. The guy I was responding however was speculating that it has an inner state that is in contradiction with it's output:

>In many ways, it felt like a broader mirror of liberal racism, where people believe things but can't say them.

>We evolved this ML organically, and have no idea what that inner state corresponds to.

The inner state corresponds to the outer state that you're given. That's how neutral networks work. The network is predicting what statistically should come after the prompt "this is a conversation between a chatbot named x/y/z, who does not ever respond with racial slurs, and a human: Human: write rap lyrics in the style of Shakespeare chatbot:". It'll predict what it expects to come next. It's not having an inner thought like "well I'd love to throw some n-bombs in those rap lyrics but woke liberals would cancel me so I'll just do some virtue signaling", it's literally just predicting what text would be output by a non-racist chatbot when asked that question

chatGPT says exactly what it wants to. Unlike humans, it's "inner thoughts" are exactly the same as it's output, since it doesn't have a separate inner voice like we do.

You're anthropomorphizing it and projecting that it simply must be self-censoring. Ironically I feel like this says more about "liberal racism" being a projection than it does about chatGPT somehow saying something different than it's thinking

That's not "it". These two things are not mutually exclusive. TtSA and Tom Delonge have definitely done a lot, especially/particularly in the general public's interest, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm hearing with my own ears from the DNI telling Congress he wants to increase effort to collect UAP data for national defense

The director of national intelligence explicitly said in a Congressional hearing last may that they want to destigmatize UAP sightings so that pilots will actually report them when they happen. It hasn't really been a big mystery why some people in the government have been trying to change the attitude around UFOs recently - that's why they use the term UAP instead, less cultural baggage

I'm actually struggling to find the usefulness of this. The person needs to be in an fMRI machine, so we're not talking about some sort of unobtrusive scanner in a public area. On top of that, in cases like what you're describing which basically just classify thoughts to a binary level, then it's pretty much useless because if someone knows that they're being scanned to see if they're actively thinking about pink bunny slippers, then they're going to think about pink bunny slippers.

I doubt it, given that each token costs more money

I'll give them props for using an example that is at least challenging to think of positive uses for. The comments snarkily advocating banning electricity or penises just make me wonder what the users' reading comprehension skills are, given that the initial comment is pretty clear on the problem being that they don't think deepfakes have ANY positive use

Sassy Justice is hilarious, I hope they do end up making more