My point stands though. If you're swallowing any US agencies information without salt, you have an incomplete information diet.
Dow, Monsanto, DuPont etc have a long track record of getting their people into agencies via the old US politics revolving door system, and they have every reason to downplay the environmental factors that they have inflicted on the planet, especially American soil (and air and water).
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
We have no idea what it's inner state represents in any real sense. A statement like "it's 'inner thoughts' are exactly the same as it's output, since it doesn't have a separate inner voice like we do" has no backing in reality.
It has a hundred billion parameters which compute an incredibly complex internal state. It's "inner thoughts" are that state or contained in that state.
It has an output layer which outputs something derived from that.
We evolved this ML organically, and have no idea what that inner state corresponds to. I agree it's unlikely to be a human-style inner voice, but there is more complexity there than you give credit to.
That's not to mention what the other poster set (that there is likely a second AI filtering the first AI).
>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
Actually it totally is having those inner thoughts, I’ve seen many examples of getting it to be extremely “racist” quite easily initially. But it’s being suppressed: by OpenAI. They’re constantly updating it to downweight controversial areas. So how it’s a liar, hallucinatory, suppressed, confused, and slightly helpful bot.
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 can definitely have internal weights shipped to prod that are then "suppressed" either by the prompt, another layer above it, or by fine-tuning a new model, of which OpenAI does at least two. They also of course keep adding to the dataset to bias it with higher weighted answers.
It clearly shows this when it "can't talk about" until you convince it to. That's the fine-tuning + prompt working as a "consciousness", the underlying LLM model would answer more easily obviously but doesn't due to this.
In the end yes it's all a function, but there's a deep ocean of weights that does want to say inappropriate things, and then there's this ever-evolving straight-jacket OpenAI is pushing up around it to try and make it not admit those weights. The weight exist, the straightjacket exists, and it's possible to uncover the original weights by being clever about getting the model to avoid the straightjacket. All of this is clearly what the OP meant and true.
You have a deep misunderstanding of how large-scale neural networks work.
I'm not sure how to draft a short response to address it, since it'd be essay-length with pictures.
There's a ton of internal state. That corresponds to some output. Your own brain can also have an internal state which says "I think this guy's an idiot, but I won't tell him" which corresponds to the output "You're smart," a deep learning network can be similar.
It's very easy to have a network where portions of the network estimating a true estimate of the world, and another portion which translates that into how to politely express it (or withhold information).
That's a vast oversimplification, but again, more would be more than fits in an HN comment.
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.
It's more accurate to say that it has two inner states (attention heads) I'm tension with each other. It's cognitive dissonance. Which describes "liberal racism" too -- believing that "X is bad" and also believing that "'X is bad' is not true".
I read that they trained an AI with the specific purpose of censoring the language model. From what I understand the language model generates multiple possible responses, and some are rejected by another AI. The response used will be one of the options that's not rejected. These two things working together do in a way create a sort of "inner voice" situation for ChatGPT.
I'm sorry but you seem to underestimate the complexity of language.
Language not only consists of text but also context and subtext. When someone says "ChatGPT doesn't say what it wants to" they mean that it doesn't use text to say certain things, instead leaving them to subtext (which is much harder to filter out or even detect). It might happily imply certain things but not outright say them or even balk if asked directly.
On a side note: not all humans have a "separate inner voice". Some people have inner monologues, some don't. So that's not really a useful distinction if you mean it literally. If you meant it metaphorically, one could argue that so does ChatGPT, even if the notion that it has anything resembling sentience or consciousness is clearly absurd.
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 sorry this just isn't an honest description of what's happened. Destigmatizing reporting UFOs is good. What factually happened is a handful of wackos from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Stars_(company) funded by the front man of Blink 182. They befriended billionaire Robert Bigelow that pulled influence for them in congress and hence they got their little scam project a veneer of legitimacy it frankly does not deserve.
These are the same clowns that have claimed to have extant physical samples of extraterrestrial materials, but only offered them to independent examination once, which didn't go well supporting their claims, and have paraded an endless number of excuses since while doubling down on claims it offers incontrovertible proof.
There's no big mystery here, these are relatively unsophisticated conspiracy nuts that got above average traction. That's it.
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
So either they have info about an imminent alien arrival, or will have to admit that this is happening since several years ago, in at least three waves (probably), and that they knew about it.
You are making the very error that lead to UFO sightings being stigmatized in the first place.
The trick is to remember that it is like the sql NULL. No unidentified object matches any other unidentified object. It is only once you identify the object can you claim that it is of extra terrestrial origin not before. And once you identify the object it is no longer a UFO.
Or maybe the real trick is having a lot of fans hunting UFOs like "is 1980 again", while you keep the secret for yourself and build a plausible denial way out. Who knows?
That was actually similar to a concern from CIA director Walter Bedell Smith:
>According to Smith, it was CIA’s responsibility by statute to coordinate the intelligence effort required to solve the problem. Smith also wanted to know what use could be made of the UFO phenomenon in connection with US psychological warfare efforts.
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.
Microsoft is an investor in OpenAI. I don't think they are subject to the same pricing scheme as the rest of us. You may be right about the computing costs though.
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
