yummytummy

That might be, but the argument was that poor cache utilization was costing Anthropic too much money in other harnesses. If cache is considered in rate limits, it doesn’t matter from a cost perspective, you’ll just hit your rate limits faster in other harnesses that don’t try to cache optimize.

Ah, so cache usage impacts rate limits. There goes the ”other harnesses aren’t utilizing the cache as efficiently” argument.

Since I posted this, you've generated over 2000 questions, thank you!

Sorry, what did you try to do and what happened?

Yes I currently only generate 3 questions per article. I tend to get worse results if I generate more questions per article. I instead try to encourage exploration by showing related articles (clickable) to try to get a wider ranger of topics instead.

I have a lot of work to do to make that whole experience smoother though.

It would actually be interesting to know what the energy required by a human is to research a topic, think of plausible options, find references and type it out.

I'm not sure how much energy Trivai requires, or if it's even remotely comparable, but you might be happy to know that all generated questions are stored in a database.

I would guess that humans produce "perfect" results 95+% of the time. In my own tests, Trivai gets "good" results, ~90% of the time.

Thank you for reporting it!

I've actually seen this particular question before. It's hard to figure out why some questions get bad or wrong answers. This question also doesn't have a proper reference.

I think it's difficult to get the initial result perfect 100% of the time. So far, my solution to this is an upvote/downvote system. This lets me either hide downvoted questions, or improve them. Right now a user who downvoted can report an issue, and I will generate new variations of the question. If either of the variations receive enough upvotes, the question will be updated.

Thank you for trying it out!

I'm matching the search queries with a Wikipedia page right now, and in this case it found "20th century art".

If you press the explanation

"Die Brücke was a group of German artists who strove for emotional Expressionism."

You'll see the reference highlighted in the Wikipedia page

"Die Brücke strove for emotional Expressionism"

I agree that it might be a bit confusing, I'll see if I can do anything to make these situations clearer.

Thanks!

Check out the pregenerated questions if you just want to see what the questions look like.

And press the text that shows up after a correct answer to see what references the question is based on!

Thank you!

Me too! I’ve been experimenting with the prompt to try to make it provide better references and questions.

Logged in users can upvote and downvote questions so the next step will be to try to fine tune the model on good questions.

I think you have some good points here. I agree that just releasing this unrestricted from the start is probably a bad idea. Being cautious is most likely a good thing.

> More generally I think there has to be a match between a social unit's (states, companies, individuals, etc) design and ability to self-regulate and the power of the technology it has access to (more power, more responsibility) or you will see undesirable outcomes. Give a kid a gun, North Korea with nukes... In contrast the OpenAI people seem like fine folks. After all they do intend their work to be more widely applied, just carefully.

This issue comes down to who gets to control and regulate these technologies. While OpenAI may have good intentions, they have demonstrated that they are willing to decide what is ethical or moral for everyone else. This gives a lot of power to one company if this service becomes widespread.

> as in the second case we would likely see ungodly amounts of information pollution on the internet (and self-coupling effects from AI training on and copying each other) and in second-order a further "epistemic scattering" (by which I mean a proliferation of belief systems that disagree in fundamentals like the laws of nature).

I think this is an interesting point. We probably have a window right now where a large enough content online is still produced by humans. Closing this too early by flooding the internet with lots of completely inaccurate content would not be good. However, it doesn't seem like the restrictions are primarily focused on inaccuracy, but on ethics.

> Your second example seems a bit whimsical

It is, my point with this example is that most people (I think) would not have a problem with the AI generating this type of content, but some filter somewhere is preventing this from happening either way. As you said, this is a WIP so it might be adjusted in the future.

> In Germany access to (and display of) Nazi propaganda material in historical collections is restricted (may be presented only in an educational context) because the state doesn't want right-wing groups to go wild in reusing it (among other reasons). Now imagine convincing hate speech being generated on the fly.

Yes, and to tie into your first point (that ChatGPT is public), it is the display and publication of this type of content that's restricted. As far as I know there are no restrictions on producing it for yourself. ChatGPT isn't "public" in that sense. Of course we're sharing all our conversations with OpenAI and there might be legal reasons for why they don't want to be involved in the production (and storage) of hate speech. I'm not sure if anybody knows what their legal liabilities would be had they released a model that could be run locally and still produce this type of content. Then again, I don't think Adobe is responsible for Nazi imagery produced with Photoshop.

Thank you for your response. I think you made some really convincing points about how this needs to be released in a controlled manner. I still think there needs to be a larger conversation about this, and I'm sceptical that moderating the production of content (as opposed to publication) is reasonable in the long run.

Thank you! There's a lot of talk about "safety" here that I think back in 2018 I interpreted as guard rails towards some sort of rogue AGI.

"and to avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power."

The current restrictions seem like the opposite of this goal.