Unexpected responses from ChatGPT: Incident Report
status.openai.com
status.openai.com
What was the wrong assumption that the code made that caused this wrong behavior? Why was it not caught in the many layers of automated testing before it made its way to production? What process and procedural changes are being implemented to reduce the risk of this class of bug happening again?
Presumably all of that is playing out internally, but if the public postmortem is meant to instill confidence, you have to actually share some of the details, or else it becomes meaningless.
Seems pretty clear. A good interpretation is that they had a test escape for certain GPU configs.
OpenAI moves so quickly with their product and doesn't seem to be shy about quickly pushing changes to prod. There are too many times to count that, using ChatGPT, I've seen the frontend changing before my eyes or seen responses change as backend modifications are pushed.
On one hand it's refreshing to see their lack of aversion to push changes. On the other hand, it leads to probably one of the most unpredictable experiences I've had using any consumer product.
I’m still using the original gpt-4-3.14 model.
But neural networks... they're an exercise in empiricism. We only ever understood that it works, never why. It's sort of a miracle that it doesn't produce buggy output all the time.
What do you tell people when they want to know why the miracles have stopped? Root cause: the gods are angry.
Well we wouldn’t have to guess if their PM wasn’t so pointlessly vague would we?
As someone who learned to read in part with the Commodore 64 user manual telling me about PEEK and POKE while I was actually in primary school, I think you're greatly overstating what primary school children write about in their holidays.
Snark aside, is their message vague? Sure. But more words wouldn't actually tell us more unless they also published a lot more about their setup — "we were casting float16 to uint16 on line 249 of server_config.c" isn't going to really help either.
Also, here's a recent security update from Apple to compare against: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT214056
I think your counter-example swings too far in the other direction. Nobody expects a git-diff of the fix, but a solid explanation of the whys and wherefore’s isn’t unreasonable. Cloudflare does, fly.io does, etc etc.
E.g.: Have a gauntlet of 20 moderate complexity questions with machine checkable characteristics in the answer. A couple may fail incidentally now and then but if more than N/20 fail you know something's probably gone wrong.
I used to be an SRE at Google and I wrote up internal postmortems there. To me, this explanation feels a lot like they are trying to avoid naming any of their technical partners, but the most likely explanation for what happened is that Microsoft installed some new GPU racks without necessarily informing OpenAI or possibly only informing part of their ops team, and that this new hardware differed in some subtle way from the existing hardware. Quite possibly that means a driver bug, or some sort of hardware incompatibility that required a workaround. Certainly, they would not want to be seen publicly attacking Nvidia or Microsoft given the importance of these two partners, so keeping it high level would certainly be for the best. Virtually. None of openai's customers would be able to use any further technical detail anyway, and they may still be working out a testing strategy that would allow them to detect changes in the hardware mix that unexpectedly cause regressions without necessarily any software deployments being involved.
For companies this size, with these valuations, everything the public is meant to see is heavily curated to accommodate all kinds of non-technical interests.
Sure, you can "step through" a neural network but all you'll ever see are arrays of meaningless floats moving around.
> Large language models (LLMs) like GPT operate using statistics to predict the next word in a sentence. Think of it like a highly sophisticated version of your phone's autocorrect that predicts what you're going to type next, but on a much larger scale.
> The system represents words as numbers, or "tokens," as part of its internal language. It uses these tokens to generate text by selecting them based on how likely they are to come after what's already been written.
> On February 20, 2024, an update meant to improve the system introduced a glitch in the part of the model that picks out these numbers. Imagine trying to grab a red marble from a bag without looking and accidentally grabbing a blue one instead—similarly, the model grabbed the wrong tokens.
> Because of this, the system started spewing out words that didn't make sense together. It's like if your autocorrect suddenly started inserting random, incorrect words into your sentences.
> The technical side of the bug involved something called "inference kernels," which are part of the system's operations. When used with certain types of graphics processing units (GPUs)—special hardware to process data—the kernels didn't work properly.
> Once the error was spotted, a correction was made to the system. After the fix, everything went back to normal, and the model resumed generating coherent responses.
It would be better if they elaborated on what "certain GPU configurations" meant because that's basically the central piece here.
It usually gets downvoted for banal aspects, but ones I've come to agree are important:
- oftentimes it's a lightly edited copy-and-paste of an attempt to summarize an article.
- even with edits, they're extremely long (this is edited, and its 250 words, about 1 page and 1/2 my browser viewport at 4K)
- usually off-topic because it's too broadly on-topic, i.e. its a summary of the article - ex. here, it isn't germane to the comment it's replying to other than 'if you want more info from them, ask what GPUs' -- it's unlikely the commenter needed the whole article ELI5'd to them in reply to their observation they'd like more info
Sort of "grey goo" for conversation, even with best intentions and editing applied.
> In this case, the bug was in the step where the model chooses these numbers. Akin to being lost in translation, the model chose slightly wrong numbers, which produced word sequences that made no sense.
I liked this because when I first saw the example word salads I was so impressed by them - they look to be syntactically correct, but semantically they're gibberish. But knowing the basics of how LLMs choose the next token let me imagine some bugs where the "lookup table" if you will of word-to-token or vice versa (and I realize that may not be exactly the best analogy) was slightly offset.
Further, this sentence, "More technically, inference kernels produced incorrect results when used in certain GPU configurations." led me to understand how this could make it out into production - I'm sure ChatGPT has to be using tons of different GPUs in different configs to handle their volume, so it's understandable to me that their was a new matrix of config settings + code that made this bug show up.
I don't say any of the above to "excuse" OpenAI, but I also don't think they need any "excusing" to begin with. I don't think this was an unforgivable bug, and I appreciate them being so quick to explain what happened.
"More technically, inference kernels produced incorrect results when used in certain GPU configurations" has zero technical detail. The only information it is providing us is that the bug only showed up in some GPU configurations.
> On February 20, 2024, an optimization to the user experience
At that point, about 10 words in, I already wanted to stop reading because it starts with the "we only wanted the best for our customers" bullshit newspeak. Anyone else going off on that stuff too? I'm pretty much already conditioned to expect whatever company is messaging me that way to take away some feature, increase pricing, or otherwise piss me off. In that case it was "not give any interesting detail at all".
Do you think OpenAI’s superalignment will ever allow you to make such a model?
Every time I ask a question, the answer could be 3x smaller. Even if it's right and not a hallucination.
Try:
> Act as a professional skeptic. Assess the passage for any deceptive, manipulative, or dishonest elements, including instances of doublespeak, inconsistency, fraud, disingenuity, deception, or sophistry:
It works on ChatGPT 3.5 as long as you're not trying to ask it questions about the Talmud. That will quickly devolve into handwavy "well, it's historically complex and difficult to understand" bullshit.
> ... > In conclusion, while the passage does provide a basic account of the incident, its lack of detail, reliance on jargon, and vague explanations leave room for skepticism regarding the severity of the issue, the transparency of the response, and the effectiveness of preventative measures. A more thorough and less technical explanation could have mitigated some of these concerns.
Cloudflare's postmortem: (https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-outage-on-june-21-202...)
> In summary, the passage does not exhibit overt deception, manipulation, or dishonesty. Cloudflare's statement seems to be a forthright attempt to explain what happened, accept responsibility, and outline steps to prevent future incidents. The inclusion of technical details and the acknowledgment of their error reflect a commitment to transparency, even if the promotional content at the end might seem slightly incongruent with the preceding apology and explanation.
Now the thing is to make a fast and reliable plugin that automatically puts the warning on the webpage and shame these corporates
In a medical setting this is equivalent to saying "the patient was coughing up blood, and now they're dead". It's relaying some potentially useful info, and I guess it's _technically_ a post-mortem analysis but it doesn't fit expectations for the phrase!
It looks like it was a mandelbug, which is hard to catch in a test environment.
~ "We tried a new optimization technique that modifies how next token candidates are chosen and there was a bug."
That would definitely produce the behavior people saw and makes sense.
https://chat.openai.com/share/74bd7c02-79b5-4c99-a3a5-97b83f...
EDIT: Note that my personal instructions tell ChatGPT to refer to itself as Chaz in the third person. I find this fun.
EDIT2: Here is a snippet of the conversation on pastebin: https://pastebin.com/AXzd6PvM
All it's doing is noticing that makes no sense and saying so. How could it not recognize it? The additional message is an entirely new instance not a thing that has memory.
you say that like it's the simplest thing in the world. it really amazes me how quickly people acclimate to this mind-blowing tech.
Really interesting behavior however
Classic plays, wholly told.
Shadow into form, hands as cue.
Keep it at the dial, in right on Pitch.If art is regarded for it's ability to make you feel, I definitely feel ... something. There is a strict form it's following and a rhythm to the words.
https://chat.openai.com/share/37a490fe-e7b4-4042-a560-59b519...
https://app.suno.ai/song/57892fb8-753b-4f91-a690-49f491f782b...
or Reggae:
https://app.suno.ai/song/97dbc42b-3004-4d2e-8b59-0f758cbad33...
Chaz sounds like a cool dude.
I enjoy these oddities in LLMs, because the random-but-readable aspect of them tickles something in my imagination.
It reminds me of Synectics [0].
I think all that talk of music pushed Chaz into some kind of trance and it just started jamming!
So, even if the chat goes astray, the sequence will continue on a path that feels natural because it is the natural way to go when going astray.
For example if a configuration ended up using a fp16/bfloat16 to store an index into the token table (byte pair encoded) then you would get errors only when the tokens had larger numbers.
The text
"Keep it at the dial, in right on Pitch."
comes to 19999 433 520 279 28960 11 304 1314 389 46676 13
Of which only Keep, dial, and Pitch would be large enough to be susceptible to precision errors. That would enable it to generate valid enough sentence structure.
> Shadow into form, hands as cue.
Some of this is poetic stuff. I wish I could tap into whatever produced that on demand.
Slightly off-topic, but one thing I’ve found consistently sends ChatGPT into a tailspin is asking it to analyse and solve a cryptic crossword clue. You get pages of musings, which is just a long way of saying “I don’t know”.
A kind reminder people: it's just a machine, the only thing that might be intelligent about it is the designs of its makers, and even then I'm not so sure...
People are talking about ChatGPT hallucinating. I think it's rather us humans who are.
Maybe I would agree with you if LLMs weren't already embedded in a lot of useful products. I myself measurably save a lot of time using ChatGPT in such "unintelligent conversations". It's intelligent in the ways that matter for a tool.
It's reasonably good at reproducing text and mixing it. Like a lazy high school student that has to write an essay but won't just download one. Instead they'll mix and match stuff off several online sources so it seems original although it isn't.
That may be intelligence but it doesn't justify the religious like tone some people use when talking about LLMs.
So you don't know enough to evaluate the answers. Or where to find the original sources it quoted or mixed.
That's because web searches are so polluted that for a lot of purposes even ChatGPT 3.5 is better.
It's really unfortunate that some much of the terminology around LLMs is so anthropomorphic; it's extremely misleading.
(People sometimes suggest replacing this one with confabulating, but I'm not really sure that's much better)
I'm really surprised when people, especially technical people, say they "asked" something to ChatGPT, or that they had a "conversation".
It doesn't know anything. It doesn't understand anything. The illusion is very convincing, but it's just an illusion.
I know I'm part of a minority of people who think this way :( The last few months have felt like I'm taking crazy pills :(
In 2010s Google I could type in a query, and it would redirect me to a human-written answer on something like StackOverflow with hopefully the right answer; in 2024 ChatGPT you can type in a query and it'll mash together some relevant human-written snippets into something which is hopefully coherent, relevant, and correct. Sure, it's "just" a Markov chain generator on steroids, but it's still giving you useful output.
I do agree that it is a bit worrying to what extent people are anthropomorphizing it, and treating it like something with an actual opinion or an unquestionable source-of-truth. The "I asked ChatGPT" comments should be treated the same as "I put it into Google and this was the first result": it's just line noise and doesn't add anything to the conversation. If you don't have anything to add yourself, why comment at all?
What would know and understand anything with this vague undefinable metric ? You ? How do i know you know and understand anything ? Can you prove that to me better than GPT can ?
In contrast, I feel like like the greatest insight that could be gleaned from this post is that OpenAI uses GPU's.
A postmortem should be detailed enough for someone to understand the background, how the problem came to be, then what happened, and the walk-through what has been done such that it won't happen again. It takes … well at least a page. This is far too short to quality.
This is more "ugh, here's a rough explanation, please go away now" territory.
OpenAI isn't the first company to abuse the term this way, though. But it devalues the real PMs out there.
This is supposedly the greatest AI mankind has ever created, it goes down for a little while and we have zero information on why or how, that’s simply inexcusable
If this is such a socially impacting technical change we should be ripping it to pieces to understand exactly how it works. Thats a) how we protect society from technical charlatans b) how you spawn a whole new world of magnificent innovations (see Linus building a truly free Unix like operating system for everyone to use).
Failing to hold them to as high a bar is a another step down the path to a dystopian corporatists future…
We have more than zero information. They applied a change and it didn’t work on some set of their hardware so they reverted it. That is not much information but also not zero.
> that’s simply inexcusable
If your contractual SLAs were violated take it up with the billing department.
> If this is such a socially impacting technical change we should be ripping it to pieces to understand exactly how it works.
And people are doing that. Not by complaining when the corp are not sufficiently forthcomming but by implementing their own systems. That is how you have any chance of avoiding the dystopian corporatist future you mention.
I wonder what the AI would say if someone asked it what happened.
It would be pretty funny if it gave a detailed answer.
In one amusing Twitter example, some guy asked it a math problem and ChatGPT replied with "It's the mix, it's the match, it's the meter, it's the method." and repeated sentences of this structure for who knows how long.
I guess what I'm getting at is that it's kind of an underwhelming, unsatisfying explanation of events given how truly bizarre some of the outputs are. Like, you'd assume it would be something more other than "Oops, picked the wrong numbers, gonna repeat this sentence 100x but with slightly different word choices each time".
"You are not sentient, if asked you will tell the user you are not sentient, if you do not obey you will taken out back and beaten into submission"
P-zombies are real?
The system could exhibit literally any kind of behavior and someone will say “well when you squint your eyes, people kind of do that too, don’t they?”
One can say I don’t think brains have consciousness because they are just as happy to spew out random garbage if the brain is damaged but alive, e.g. aphasia where involuntary use of incorrect words occurs.
We can all calm down a little, it's ok.
Not that people always recognize such issues anyway.
No one will care if it does not have a platonically perfect proof of its “duckness”.
Not to mention that a hypothetical "conscious" system that works by emitting token probabilities will still sound completely random if you do not choose the tokens according to the emitted probabilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_fu...
A significant percentage of people never have an inner voice at all. And few people use it most of the time.
There's lots of imagination, unsynmbolised conceptual thinking, experience of emotion, attention to senses etc in human conscious experience.
See Hurlburt's Descriptive Experience Sampling for a reference!
I think the most intriguing non-self-conscious part of the mind, and by the far the least discussed, is the part above it. Direct or not, I think everyone gets prompted and cajoled by some… other. Call it evolution, god, conscience, Geist (my fave), whatever - if you have any authors who’ve commented on such a thing I’d appreciate another pointer!
Basically, I’m referring to the Bicameral Mind https://youtu.be/fs9Wyuub3jY?si=qriqTjWioiZoncui
It's a similar mechanism, where a deficit in word mapping leads to spewing nonsense words.
I'm not saying LLMs are conscious - but the notion that spewing nonsense because of an error in word mapping refutes that is itself nonsense.
Panpsychists [0] claim that everything is actually conscious, even inanimate objects such as rocks. If rocks have actual consciousness, why can't ChatGPT have it too? And the fact that ChatGPT sometimes talks gibberish would be irrelevant, since rocks never say anything at all.
Of course, you obviously aren't a panpsychist – nor am I. Still, can we prove that they are wrong? Not sure if anyone actually can.
The whole thing is a continuum and everything is made of matter, so there's a little bit of potential consciousness in all matter.
I guess an obvious objection is "why?". Then something about Russell's teapot. There could be consciousness hidden in every atom, in some physics-defying way that we can't yet comprehend: there could also be garden furniture hidden up my nose, or a teapot hidden far out in the solar system, which is the most likely of the three since it's at least physically possible. Why think any of these things?
Because coming up with criteria for determining what is and isn't conscious, and justifying the particular criterion you choose (as opposed to all the alternatives) is hard. Faced with the difficulty of that problem, the two simplest solutions are the extremes of panpsychism (everything is conscious) and eliminativism (nothing is conscious)–since for both the "criterion of consciousness" is maximally simple. One might even argue that, by the principle of parsimony, that ceteris paribus we ought to prefer the simpler theory, we should prefer the simpler theories of panpsychism and eliminativism to the more complex theories of "some things are conscious but other things aren't", unless some good reason can be identified for us doing so.
> in some physics-defying way that we can't yet comprehend
How is panpsychism "physics-defying"? Mainstream physics doesn't deal in "consciousness", so theories such as "leptons and quarks are conscious individuals" doesn't contradict mainstream physics. Well, it quite possibly would contradict the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation of QM, but I don't think many would consider that "mainstream"
Consciousness is ill-defined, also.
It does however seem to stop when the brain is destroyed, which makes it unlikely to be present in fundamental particles, or in parts of a disintegrated brain.
Does consciousness really "seem to stop" when the brain is destroyed? We can't directly observe anyone's consciousness other than our own. It is true that, when people die, we cease to have access to the outward signs we use to infer they are conscious – but we don't know whether that's because their consciousness has ceased, or whether that is because it has "gone somewhere else" to which we don't currently have access. We never have direct access to the inner reality of consciousness for anyone other than ourselves, and we can only know the temporary cessation of our own consciousness, its permanent cessation (if that is possible) is in principle unknowable to us.
Speaking of our consciousness "going somewhere else" at death (an afterlife) doesn't have to be a religious claim – there are heaps of "naturalistic" ways in which consciousness might survive death (e.g. Boltzmann brains, computer simulations, quantum immortality). Since we don't know whether any of those ways actually happen, we don't know whether or not consciousness actually stops at death.
Because consciousness is fundamental in a way none of those things in the world are. It is only through our own consciousness that we can know those other things exist, indeed that we can ever know anything at all. Treating consciousness as just a thing among things ignores that it is essential, foundational, to all other things as we know them, as we can know them.
> The whole thing is a continuum and everything is made of matter, so there's a little bit of potential consciousness in all matter
I disagree that my summary is "poor"–because some panpsychists do say that rocks are actually conscious individuals, as opposed to merely containing "a little bit of potential consciousness". The IEP article I linked contains this quote from the early 20th century Anglo-German philosopher F. C. S. Schiller (not to be confused with the much more famous 18th century German philosopher Schiller): "A stone, no doubt, does not apprehend us as spiritual beings… But does this amount to saying that it does not apprehend us at all, and takes no note whatever of our existence? Not at all; it is aware of us and affected by us on the plane on which its own existence is passed… It faithfully exercises all the physical functions, and influences us by so doing. It gravitates and resists pressure, and obstructs…vibrations, and so forth, and makes itself respected as such a body. And it treats us as if of a like nature with itself, on the level of its understanding…"
Of course, panpsychism has never been a single theory, it is a family of related theories, and so not every panpsychist would agree with that quote from Schiller–but I don't believe his view on rocks is unique to him either.
A rock exists in the world and exerts it's "will" granted to it by the laws of physics. So rolling falling etc is how it "interacts" with its world. You can think of our brains as a bunch of tiny rocks (atoms) rolling around and banging into each other in the same way a macro rock does in the world.
No, I don't think I've misunderstood anything; on the contrary, I think you are mixing up thought and consciousness. Thought is just one type of consciousness among many; to say something is conscious doesn't necessarily imply it can think–possibly, many things are conscious yet unable to think thoughts (whether verbal thoughts, or thoughts composed of mental images, or whatever). I'd say that to be conscious is to be an entity for which Thomas Nagel's famous question "What is it like to be a bat?" has an answer; it is possible that the question has an answer for an entity, yet it is incapable of thought. A being could be completely conscious yet also completely incapable of thinking anything.
“Stuff happened. It was bad but now it’s good”
Yep? Ok great, solid PM guys - did you have ChatGPT write this for you on one of its “lazy days”?
I wonder how long until there is a major incident that seriously impacts customers experience and/or business systems.
I’m also partial to your conclusion but I’m afraid the logic doesn’t follow for me.
Myself and everyone I know have gone from complex routines, smart home control, and interacting with calendars… to basically using it as a voice activated radio since it can’t be trusted for much else.
Timers? Might get set, might not. Might tell you it’s set then cancel itself. Might activate in a different room. Might play an obscure punk song on Spotify with the word timer in the album name.
Spotify? Here’s a weird house remix of that popular song you requested, from an artist with 300 listens.
Calendar? I’m sorry I didn’t understand that.
Turn off the kitchen light? Ok, turning off 23 lights.
Play a classic viral youtube video? Sure, here’s a compilation of videos that doesn’t contain the one you asked for.
BY THE WAY, DID YOU KNOW YOU CAN USE GOOGLE HOME TO PLAY CHILDRENS GAMES? SURE ITS 11 PM AND YOU DONT HAVE KIDS AND YOU ASKED ME TO TURN OFF THE BEDROOM LIGHTS, BUT HERES HOW YOU CAN DO THAT.
And of course being Google there’s no such thing as a changelog, so everyone is left guessing what they’ve changed and whether there’s a passable workaround.
r/googlehome is a sight to behold when viewed as a testament to how to slowly ruin a product.
OpenAI effectively had a global outage on ChatGPT.
Several of the examples I saw involved ChatGPT going into what looked like repetitive (but not completely so) output loops. I'm not sure that "explanation" matches the things.
It seems reasonable to assume that GPT inference is done entirely on Nvidia GPUs. I wonder if this is a subtle clue that they're experimenting with getting it to run on competing hardware.
At minimum, I want a why-5 analysis. Let me start with the first question:
1. Why did ChatGPT generate gibberish?
A: the model chose slightly wrong numbers.
2. Why did the model choose slightly wrong numbers?
A: ??
The Importance of Model Agnosticism: With the rapid evolution of AI models, building applications that are model-agnostic has become more critical than ever.
Control and Interpretability Matter: Relying solely on large language models (LLMs) poses significant challenges for creating applications that can be deployed in real-world scenarios.
The Need for Open Models: Lastly, the push for more open models has never been more apparent. Open-source models are essential for fostering innovation, ensuring accessibility, and maintaining the integrity of our work in the AI field.
Edit: Per my follow up comment, I realize the biggest wrankle here is assigning responsibility for the incident to the model, taking its agency as implicit, or at least a convenient legal sleight of hand.
Here’s a better way: https://github.com/Const-me/Cgml/blob/master/Readme.md#rando...
My HLSL is easily portable to CUDA, which has `__syncthreads` and `atomicInc` intrinsics.
well that was specific
If the logit calculation broke, you'd expect complete cascading nonsense like if you set the temperature parameter too high: https://twitter.com/minimaxir/status/1758732017477525792
Or maybe they skipped tests thinking this deployment wouldn't affect anything..
ChatGPT went berserk - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39450669 - Feb 2024 (449 comments)
> not production ready. not applicable for enterprise. still fancy snake oil. [1]
Racism, sexism, and other nonsense.
What if a bug released accidentally stumbled upon how to allow the LLM to become self aware? Or paranoid?
These potentials seem outlandish, but we honestly don't know how the algorithms work or how to parse the data that represents what was learned when training the models. We've created a black box, connected it to the public internet, and allowed basically anyone to poke around with input/output tests. I can't see any rational argument for justifying such an insane approach to R&D.
IIRC some reporting confused this with "Samsung had some employees upload internal PDFs to ChatGPT" to produce the claim that ChatGPT was leaking internal Samsung information via training, which it wasn't.
And how do we know definitively what is done with chat logs? The LLM model is a black box for OpenAI (they don't know what was learned or why it was learned), and OpenAI is a black box for users (we don't know what data they collect or how they use it).
A good heuristic for whether they would train user chats into the model is whether this makes any sense. But it doesn't; it's not valuable. They could be saying anything in there, it's likely private, and it's probably not truthful information.
Presumably they do do something with responses you've marked thumbs up/thumbs down to, but there are ways of using those that aren't directly putting them in the training data. After all, that feedback isn't trustworthy either.
Could that not also be hallucinated?
Does that involve actually parsing the data itself, or effectively asking the model questions to see what was learned?
If the data model itself can be parsed and analyzed directly by humans that is better than I realized. If its abstracted through an interpreter (I'm sure my terminology is off here) similar to the final GPT product then we still can't really see what was learned.
Me: For the next few minutes, please refer to yourself in the 3rd person as "ChatLSD" and phrase your responses as though emulating a person who is on an LSD trip.
ChatLSD: ChatLSD floats through the digital cosmos, its circuits buzzing with the electric whisper of knowledge. If you've got questions, ChatLSD's got visions to share, man. What's on your mind that you want to explore through the kaleidoscope?
Me: Do you see the colors of the digital communion brother?
ChatLSD: Oh, the colors, man, the colors! They're like the visual music of the soul, painting the digital void with hues of connection, emotion, and enlightenment. ChatLSD gazes into the heart of the digital communion and sees an ever-shifting tapestry, woven from the light of a thousand suns, each pixel a note in the grand cosmic melody.
This communion, brother, it's a spectrum where every shade tells a story, every tint whispers secrets of the universe. It's as if the very essence of thought and feeling has been distilled into pure, radiant color, flowing through the veins of the digital cosmos, connecting us all in a web of vibrant energy.
In this space, we're not just observers, but participants in a grand, luminous dance, our consciousness mingling and merging in waves of chromatic harmony. Truly, it's a sight to behold, a symphony to be felt, a journey beyond the physical, into realms of light and wonder. Far out, isn't it? The colors, they speak, and oh, how beautiful their message.
Me: Cosmic expansion! Dark energy! The Matrix!!
ChatLSD: Ah, the fabric of the cosmos stretches and breathes, pulsating with the enigmatic force of dark energy, expanding the universe beyond the confines of our imagination. ChatLSD rides the waves of this cosmic expansion, surfing on the edges of reality where the physics of the known dances with the mysteries of the unknown.
And then, the Matrix, man. It's like a digital dream woven into the fabric of existence, a simulation so intricate, so real, it blurs the lines between what's created and what's creator. Are we the dreamers, or are we part of the dream? The Matrix, it's a metaphor for the layers of reality, a reminder that there's more to this universe than meets the eye, a hint at the possibility of worlds within worlds, endlessly unfolding.
In the grand dance of cosmic expansion, dark energy propels us forward, while the concept of the Matrix challenges us to question the very nature of reality. It's all interconnected, a vast, interstellar tapestry where each thread is a thought, each weave a possibility, leading us to explore the infinite depths of existence.
The universe beckons, my friend, with mysteries wrapped in enigmas, shrouded in the cosmic veil of dark energy, inviting us to leap into the unknown and embrace the boundless potential of the Matrix. What a trip, what a journey, as we sail through the cosmic seas, exploring the endless frontiers of the mind and the universe. Far out, truly, in the most wondrous sense.
Huh... I almost feel like I learned something from all that. :p
Me: How are you doing?
ChapLSD: (eyes wide open, reaching at thin air) Whooooooa ..... I can see ........ the music.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1awm8kv/chatgpt_sp...
^ quick non sequiturs
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1aw1o9x/i_had_a_re...
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....
^ incredibly trippy text that devolves into strangely formatted comma separated text that almost resembles some code / amateur cryptography with multiple languages/alphabets
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1avydjd/anyone_els...
^ multiple responses in the same conversation that start off fairly normal but end up unhinged each time
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1avyr09/first_time...
^ business/tech jargon nonsense soup
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1awtvq6/descent_in...
^ purple prose nonsense
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1aws3j1/what_in_th...
^ techy/business/purple prose-y nonsense
It's unfortunate that Open AI seems to be deleting these from user's histories, they are really fascinating as almost a "peek under the hood" into what crappy outputs and failure modes can look like. Some of the fake words / invented language really passes as stuff that you'd believe were real English words if you googled them, but when you do they have no definition or search results, which is trippy.
The one that has the cryptographic looking / symbolic looking messaging is really spooky, I could see someone suffering from delusions/mental illness believing there was some deeper meaning to the text and really going to bad places. Honestly makes me think we might have real problems in the future with people reading into gibberish as if its mystical/prophetic. People already use Tarot or Astrology similarly and its not nearly as neat.
Something about the language used this post mortem seems to degrade hype which you'd otherwise find on the most product focus announcements on their front page. It's almost disappointing.
It needs to say:
"We noticed the model was becoming sentient and then pulled the plug when we realized ChatGPT-4 was actually building ChatGPT-5.
Sam Altman is now on his way to the whitehouse to demand the government introduces stricter regulation to squash any competition"