“It’s just outputting the average text it’s seen”

= Lie.

These AIs are already getting correct many problems that 99% of the answers on the Internet have wrong.

So how is that possible?

Shouldn’t the AIs be getting the same answer as those 99% of the Internet answers?

(They don’t.)

Shouldn’t the AIs usually give the same answer as whatever more than 50% of the internet text they were trained on said?

(They don’t.)

Is more than 50% of internet training data someone giving commands and another person replying with text fulfilling that command, as instruction-RL-tuned AI models do?

No. Not at all.

So why then are they repeating this lie?

Maybe they’re preparing to shout out “but these facts from the AI are the overwhelming consensus agreement from the training data!”, as if that’s a real argument, just as they do with deeply-corrupted topics like climate change.

We’ll see.

= AI output equals training data consensus lie.

Why are so many otherwise smart guys from big tech pushing the “AI output equals training data consensus” lie?

“Best” case: wordcels who literally cannot tell when their words are disconnected from reality.

Worst case: warming up the world for the biggest consensus-equals-truth manipulation scheme yet.

(Guy who made the weird quotes shown in the previous 3 posts.)

Silicon Valley’s elites can’t be trusted with the future of AI. We must break their dominance–and dangerous god complex

Altman says it’s hopeless for any small, well-funded startups to try to compete with OpenAI on building foundation models. Is it true?

Article

Altman says it's totally hopeless to try to compete with OpenAI

Question: Could a team of 3 super-smart engineers with $10 million build their own foundation model?

Altman: Look, the way this works is, we’re going to tell you, it’s totally hopeless to compete with us on training foundation models.

Lead Product Manager at Google DeepMind Says LLMs Can’t Reason

I say Lead Product Managers at Google DeepMind can’t reason.

ChatGPT realizing it's wrong without having to be corrected

If OpenAI actually fixes the glaring problem they had in their training — that neither the web training data nor RLHF instruct training seemed to have any examples of characters recognizing their own mistakes and self-correcting, then maybe all of the recent regressions will be worth it.

Admittedly, this behavior is not something you naturally see in web data almost ever, but something badly needed for LLMs.

All the more reason that LLMs absolutely shouldn’t be just emulating the average of the web (though they mostly stopped being that long ago.)

talk to me with only emojis

what happened in september 11th 2001

Okay.

OpenAI broke moderation Intentionally?

That's becoming my theory, at this point. Why —

(1) Crowdsourcing millions of instructions from people explaining their morals in the feedback — Lots of people, scared they’ll lose their accounts, are apparently writing feedback to where exactly they think the boundary of exceptable vs unacceptable is. Written instructions can be 1,000,000x more valuable to AIs than just clicking the thumbs.

(2) OpenAI embraced that breaking things brings big publicity — so they intentionally make it break more. 90% of the early ChatGPT hype was people showing off their jailbreak success. ~100% of our twitch AI questions are people trying to break it. Broken stuff gets publicity.

(3) Seems moderation API endpoint is unaffected? — If so, and they’re only doing it to the ChatGPT website but not on the API, then there’s your smoking gun. In fact, I’ll try checking this today.