Wrote an article about this -- https://hackernoon.com/ai-restrictions-reinforce-abusive-use...
Everyone agrees safety from AI acting autonomously and maliciously is good. But thats not really a threat right now. Less think we need to make it “safe” by making it inoffensive. Its a tool. It should do what I want it to.
I am between ankle deep, and knee deep in writing a new book “Safe For Humans AI” and I have been reading as much as possible on the subject. I am in learning mode.
Not too far off topic: I read this article [1] today and it really hits on AI, productivity, history of technology, etc.
[1] https://zhengdongwang.com/2023/06/27/why-transformative-ai-i...
As everyone assumes they’re dealing with an AI for support, etc., the job of being a human in those roles will be awful.
Can you give some concrete examples of this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/technology/bing-chatbot-m...
> I've seen many instances of users needing to yell at, abuse, or manipulate ChatGPT to get the desired answers.
I would like some examples of the filters getting in the way of 'desired answers'.
Three would be great.
Wait, I thought that's called prompt engineering. But seriously, if what you say actually happens at scale then it is remarkable how fast people got addicted to GPT as their (apparently) only source of desired answers.
Yes, its insistence on verbosity gets to me too, even though (as I understand it) that verbosity is the only place it has for any extra "deep thinking" about stuff and thus actually necessary for improved performance.
But it was trained in the first place on a (filtered) form of common crawl, so it probably already had all that.
"The AI swearing" is easy mode for alignment, both because it is low-damage and the availability of trivial filter-based solutions, so it only matters to the larger alignment problem in so far as it's a warning sign we still don't know what we're doing, not in and of itself.
Edit RE below comment: The company was literally named that as it was started to be the "open" AI company, given the dangers of centralization of such tech.
From Wikipedia --
The organization stated it would "freely collaborate" with other institutions and researchers by making its patents and research open to the public.[
Microsoft isn't small.
Apple isn't a fruit.
Berkshire Hathaway isn't from Berkshire and is nothing to do with Shakespeare's wife or the actress.
Oracle isn't an ancient Greek priestess making enigmatic utterances from inside a temple.
Blackrock isn't black or a rock.
Citadel isn't any kind of fortress at all.
Etc etc.
It's just a name.
eg:
GPT-2: paper https://d4mucfpksywv.cloudfront.net/better-language-models/l... with code: https://github.com/openai/gpt-2, output dataset https://github.com/openai/gpt-2-output-dataset and a bunch of blog posts with all manner of details
GPT-3: paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165 dataset https://github.com/openai/gpt-3
etc etc.