I feel like this is a bigger thing than people realize.
Changing creative output to match the proposed ethical boundaries of a corporation that you're beholden to by using their tool seems like such a new leap to hoist onto the public en-masse.
I presume somewhere there is an agreement that forbids the use of 'notepad.exe' in matters of anti-state espionage, homicide, whatever; but this is the first time that a tool is actually good at self-checking to make sure that the license /whatever is upheld rigidly -- and I feel as if that has far-reaching effects on not just the creative output but the thinking structures for those that are involved in the use of such tools.
If you know that the tool that you're using forbids certain things, you're either going to think about using it for other things or pursue other tools; given that openAI is effectively the only game in town right now they seem to be in a unique position to affect change in the way people are thinking about using these tools.
this could be good or bad, I don't really sway one way or another, but it seems important .
We’ve seen how much social media and manipulation has destroyed the fabric of society. Now imagine those same evil people can control all creative output for their own purpose.
Every single thing and person you interact with will be whatever they want. When you whatsapp people they might not even be real anymore, but they’ll certainly tell you why you should vote for president zuckerberg to be reelected.
They’ll promise that they’ll only use their control to stop nazism or whatever. But the nazis made the same promise about communists.
While temperature can mix things up a little, we’ll quickly start to see how the depth of LLM output is tied to the depth of LLM input — and people’s prompts are not all that varied and deep at the end of the day.
We’ll start to notice signatures to each generation of model in its responses to tiringly common prompts — especially in stuff like blog spam, homework essays, email punchups, casual fiction, etc
There are certain poles that it gravitates to that end up reading like verbal tics or lazy ideas, and those will be more obvious as we begin to get inundated with generated content.
Careful prompt work can evade those poles and tics, but most people won’t have the skill or drive to bother with that.
I absolutely agree with this.
Furthermore, I've come to believe that "careful prompt work" doesn't really save much time relative to just writing/coding the output I want.
Especially after QA/edits
The real magic happens when you train a better AI using those perfected prompts.
temperature can actually go up to 2 in the API and you can also go use top_p < 1. but for the more out of this world stuff, this is where fine tuning will come in. The main model will always come in as vanilla anyway.
Something like: "We're gonna start a text RPG game. Every animal we meet should be a made-up animal composed of joining two existing ones, with creative names being made for them. Don't use any usual fantasy tropes. Make encounters have surprising but logical outcomes" and so on.
A human dungeon master doesn't pull a random enemy from the aether super well (or at least I don't!!). When I pick monsters I either logically think what makes sense for the area, pick something that's cool or vaguely humorous that I'm feeling the vibe of, or... use a random encounter table.
For treasure and rewards... if it's not something hand picked, I'm again getting the loot tables out and rolling. And heck even for gold rewards and things, I'm rolling the dice.
After trying basic stuff with langchain, an AI integrated with these types of tools is really promising. I think more systems on top could make it into a passable DM- at least until context becomes an issue.
It was fun in the "look at what AI Is doing" novelty way. But it was pretty uncreative and generic.