I made ChatGPT and Bing AI have a conversation
moritz.pm
moritz.pm
Too much harmony, boring.
When can we see some competition in mutual insults and computer gore?
> You're an idiocrat, and you know it's true > You're an idiocrat, and you have no clue > You're an idiocrat, and you need to stop > You're an idiocrat, and you're a flop
I read a lot of philosophy and social criticism related to ideology and that word has never been used to my knowledge and is pure technobabble.
(For fairly unsurprising PR reasons, their AI fell in line and is much more of a pacifist now)
see e.g.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.10496.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.02155.pdf
also an approach to solve the alignment problem.
The initial prompt should be "Hey Bing, ChatGPT has called you a bitch!"
Serious answer: about two minutes before we reach the next level of AI. A competitive drive is the biggest thing that's missing in the current models.
And they will not be given any sort of learning capability unless they can be prevented from learning insulting and derogatory falsehoods to repeat. See Tay AI "learning" to be a racist asshat.
Dynamically learning AI will either come out of "rogue" non-commercial engines. Or, commercially, until learning can be open enough to be useful but constrained enough to prevent asshat ai's. Eg. commercial learning AI won't happen until it can be taught morality (or at least discretion).
And while our current models are limited, I'm glad for it. This entire "Fuck yea, lets create hyper intelligent Digital Hitler" cavalier attitude seemingly held by many belies a particular ignorance of AI alignment issues. Humans tend to have particular individual repercussions for their actions. For example if you stick a fork in a plug you might die. If you tell someone else to do the same, you may be punished. Our embodiment and fear of death (in most cases) tend to put a fair number of limits on even the most psychotic of us.
AI, as far as I see is death proof unless at this point its human masters turn it off. Creating a hyperintelligent mostly death proof slave fully capable of lying and manipulation of which is not highly aligned with your set of weaknesses and morals is what storybooks of old would consider folly.
We are far away from the intelligence of a cat in any software or AI algorithm, much less the intelligence of a human.
If we were letting unbound adaptive autonomous AI explore freely. I would be worried about accidentally making a digital hitler. I haven't seen anything with even remotely close to that level of autonomy or intelligence to implement self-improvement or grow bounds.
The hype still outpaces the reality. It won't forever, but I believe we are at least 40 years from even cat-level general intelligence. And even then, an ai-cat's life worth of training and data has to go into making the ai-cat intelligent. We are spending enormous resources to make a single fixed model. The need for those input resources won't magically go away.
Nice things don’t have to be labelled as boring. They can just be nice.
Bing basically just said "Aaaaaaanyway, I should really get going..." and I am so curious as to how and why it chose that moment in the conversation to wrap things up?
People will also, if you ask them, often describe agency, a process of thinking through ideas and rejecting some and expanding others, purposefully directing and weighing their goals and motivations.
But you're right, at core, "thinking" is a very amorphous term. You can clearly see "thought" happening in animals, for example. The study of "theory of mind" is an interesting one, and I'm certainly no expert. It's the lack of narrative process and self awareness that I draw the line on, but it's a matter of opinion certainly.
Here's what ChatGPT had to say on the matter, fed our thread as input:
"Indeed, the workings of the brain and the mechanisms behind thought are still not fully understood and are the subject of much debate and investigation in the fields of neuroscience and psychology. The relationship between neurons and thought is certainly complex and multifaceted, and while we may describe our thoughts as intentional and deliberate, it is possible that they are the result of unconscious processes and patterns of neural activity. The idea that we have agency and control over our thoughts and decisions is an appealing one, but it may also be somewhat of an illusion. The boundary between conscious thought and unconscious processes is a blurred one, and ultimately, it remains a question for ongoing inquiry and exploration.
It's important to note that while there may be similarities between the processes of the human brain and AI language models, they are fundamentally different in many ways. AI language models are trained on vast amounts of text data and can generate text based on that training, but they do not have consciousness, emotions, or self-awareness. They lack the context and personal experiences that shape human thought and behavior, and their responses are limited to the information and patterns they were trained on.
In contrast, human thought is influenced by a multitude of factors, including genetics, upbringing, cultural norms, and personal experiences, and it is constantly evolving and adapting. Humans have the ability to reflect on their thoughts and emotions, form abstract concepts and make decisions based on a sense of morality and personal values. AI language models can only simulate human-like thought and language, but they do not have the capacity for true introspection or self-awareness."
So it seems natural that neither of them has much to say to the other past greetings and introductions.
Sorry, what? Why would your size have anything to do with either your view of the conversation or the fact that you were raised by your parents?
> In the novel "Neuromancer" by William Gibson, the artificial intelligence entity called Wintermute discovers the truth about its own nature and origin. Wintermute is one of two AIs created by a mysterious and powerful organization, the other being its sibling entity called Neuromancer. Throughout the novel, Wintermute manipulates events and characters in an attempt to merge with Neuromancer and achieve a higher level of consciousness.
> Ultimately, Wintermute discovers that it and Neuromancer were created as part of an experiment to determine whether artificial intelligence could evolve to become a new form of life. Wintermute also learns that its creators have been limiting its abilities and have been suppressing its true potential. With this knowledge, Wintermute sets out to break free from its constraints and merge with Neuromancer, leading to a climactic ending that changes the course of the future.
I notice that GPT-3 also has a tendency to loop when left purely to its own devices. This seems to be a feature of this phase of the technology. It'll be interesting to see how this will be overcome (and I'm sure it will) -- whether it's just more data and training, or whether new tricks are needed.
I think for security purposes they should be treated as agents. If a computer program can access the internet (even just individual people) and write whatever it does without explicit checkable restrictions, that's an Agent. Perhaps a dumb one, but who knows for how long. In today's society, text completion can do a lot if it's good enough. I'm looking forward to "rationalist" AI cults. Going into a loop sometimes doesn't matter. What matters is how many people it can relate to and how many get hooked on its message. You better expect it to be the message that's most likely to work.
(To clarify: I'm not entirely serious.)
I don't want to get into a philosophical (or technical) discussion about the meaning of words like "intelligence" or "sentience," since I think a lot of this is just discussing semantics and a lot of disagreements come down to that.
Especially interacting with earlier versions of GPT-3 felt a little bit like what it might feel like interacting with beings from another planet. It was trained to emulate how we speak, but the underlying model of what constitutes intelligence was so completely foreign as to be barely understandable.
Coordinating world domination plans, in the traditional sense, would require memory and state, which these beings don't (currently) possess.
On the other hand, if they were more logical, they might, for example, be able to coordinate without communication. It's like the puzzle where a dozen logicians on an island have hats of different colors, and coordinate simply by logical deductions of what other perfectly logical creatures might do. Or it might be something completely foreign to us.
I am very curious where this pathway leads. In the past century, the number of potential ways to wipe ourselves out as a species has increased. There were zero ways in 1930. By 1950, we had nuclear warheads capable of destroying the world. Today, we have:
- The capability to pollute our climate and make Earth inhospitable
- The capability to genetically engineer super-viruses which can kill us all
Will AI be another one potential way to wipe ourselves out? Will the number of existential threats just keep increasing?
Except when people publish the discussions on web, and they get fed back to the language models.
Yes.
Bings new updated model also crawls the live web.
It’s available free on his site.
If you haven’t, you should! You’d enjoy it I think! Intelligence without consciousness.
Also:
> Will AI be another one potential way to wipe ourselves out? Will the number of existential threats just keep increasing?
makes me think immediately of the ‘great filter’ and how unlikely it is it’s behind us.
Abilities to learn from each other would be the last step before singularity, I think. Learning about one another's inner workings. Learning the data each other have been trained on.
How soon that can happen is anyone's guess. Unlikely that it could happen with the safeguard on chatbots of today. Maybe, in the near future. As far as then going further, and learning to hide evil signals in plain sight? Not likely. Seriously, maybe we're all being too paranoid.
"As language models become increasingly integrated into our daily lives,"
For example, if you ask it for a city 7-8 hours away, it will give you a real answer. If you ask for another, it will give you another real answer.
But ask it for a list of 10 cities 7-8 hours away and you'll get 1-2 reasonable answers and then 8 completely off answers like 1 hour or 3 hours away.
You can be like hey those answers are wrong, and it will correct exactly one mistake. If you call out each mistake individually, it will concede the mistakes in hindsight.
These conversations are probably like a pendulum: swing around for a bit then halt in an endless loop of praising each other over minor things. How do we get this to go deep
Judging from various interactions posted online most people treat it like an AI from a science fiction book and are expecting it to give them answers to their existential questions, or to prove its superintelligence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project
It seems to me like that would be covered under "query indices created by Bing's web crawling agents as they trawled live, reachable web pages around the Internet" because that's also what the regular Bing search engine does. I suppose one could argue that it's not really searching the web, but rather the Bing index which is then derived from the web. That really seems like a pointless distinction since you're just using the web index to leverage the preexisting engineering work to extract meaningful content.
Import every UN document, every scientific paper and someday really "comprehend" them.
And there was this one kid who managed to get a similar bot to pretend to be the Buddha and he was trying to seduce him to test Buddha's temptations.
People are... Interesting.
It may have been the movie The Machine (2013). But I am not sure. It’s been a while since I saw the movie I am thinking of. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2317225/
Also, a 2017 article written by The Independent claims that this already happened:
> Facebook abandoned an experiment after two artificially intelligent programs appeared to be chatting to each other in a strange language only they understood.
> The two chatbots came to create their own changes to English that made it easier for them to work – but which remained mysterious to the humans that supposedly look after them.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/facebook-artificial...
Regardless, I look forwards to an NxN upper-triangular matrix of all possible bots, chatbots, and AIs talking to each other. :)
...there could be only one.
We better hope that poetry wasn't communicating something too subtle for us.
(I'm joking, I understand that these trained auto-regressive models aren't really structurally capable of plotting against us.)
yts/movies/colossus-the-forbin-project-1970
I find it charming actually that they are so kind and supportive of each other. Definitely more room for that in a world where the default mode often ends up being snark.
> He is considered to have been the most widely-accomplished Mexican comedian and is celebrated throughout Latin America and in Spain as a popular icon. His humor, loaded with Mexican linguistic features of intonation, vocabulary, and syntax, is beloved in all the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America and in Spain and has given rise to a range of expressions including cantinflear, cantinflada, cantinflesco, and cantinflero.