Timeline for How does ChatGPT respond to novel prompts and commands?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
48 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2023 at 15:17 | comment | added | yters | @MilindR haha! I totally agree. I've looked all over the internet, and I'm the only person posing this theory. It's like the Emperor's new clothes :D | |
| May 11, 2023 at 5:52 | comment | added | Milind R | It's criminal that this answer is downvoted so heavily... This is extremely plausible. Otherwise, the capabilities of chatgpt don't match the descriptions, they far exceed them. | |
| S Feb 2, 2023 at 20:51 | history | suggested | ak0000 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Typo prevented URL from working
|
| Feb 2, 2023 at 20:23 | comment | added | ak0000 | @yters Cool, I think that makes things a lot clearer, including the preamble about the matrix implementation to contextualize why the examples you're listing seem anomalous. Thanks! | |
| Feb 2, 2023 at 20:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 2, 2023 at 20:51 | |||||
| Feb 2, 2023 at 6:53 | history | edited | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed article link.
|
| Feb 2, 2023 at 6:47 | comment | added | yters | @ak0000 added an article with a list of examples. | |
| Feb 2, 2023 at 6:47 | history | edited | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
ANother list
|
| Jan 16, 2023 at 21:01 | comment | added | yters | @ak0000 the jumbled words is something called typoglycemia, words that are jumbled but still human readable. I purposefully jumbled them to break the subword tokens that the ChatGPT neural network depends on. In the spaced version, the spaces are between the subword tokens to achieve the opposite effect: something that should be easy for ChatGPT neural network to comprehend, but difficult for humans. Per your comment, I don't believe the spaces are removed before hand, since ChatGPT's token ids change based on whether there are spaces before the token or not. | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 20:41 | comment | added | ak0000 | @yters I see, I just read earlier in the chat also. I'm not understanding the significance of the jumbled token sentences, but I'm assuming the significance of the spaced-sentences is that a first input step to all GPT models is space-removal, and so differential responses based on spaces would be very indicative of human intervention? If so, I think that's actually a more convincing point than the admission that follows in the chat, but both are interesting. | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 19:51 | comment | added | yters | @ak0000 yes, I agree regarding believers, but at some point a belief in AI becomes unfalsifiable. If they believe OpenAI has achieved AGI, then they can presume unlimited capabilities, but that is unscientific. I propose the principle of mediocrity: what is the most plausible explanation for what we observe based on what we know? In my opinion, the evidence lands decisively on the human in the loop side, especially with the latest ChatGPT transcript. If you read more, there are further signs of human intervention, like my observation that compelled ChatGPT to spill the beans. | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 16:22 | comment | added | ak0000 | @yters Interesting, I think it is pretty compelling evidence. Believers would probably say that it is just drawing on the corpus of text about AI systems generally, so I'm not sure it is a smoking gun. But definitely helpful | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 13:03 | history | edited | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added example of ChatGPT outright saying humans curate its responses.
|
| Jan 15, 2023 at 22:10 | comment | added | yters | @ak0000 ChatGPT just told me all its responses are monitored and curated by the OpenAI team, and gave me an explanation for why they are not more explicit about the human in the loop. Basically, RTFM they say. They also say it's fine they do this human in the loop system because all the other AI companies do the same thing. What do you think about that? You can see the admission starting here in the transcript: github.com/yters/transcripts/blob/main/… | |
| Jan 15, 2023 at 18:45 | comment | added | yters | Yes, there is certainly AI in the mix, no doubt about that. I don't believe the system is solely human powered. And yes, there is an enormous amount of money on the table, which makes it all the more important for OpenAI to present the appearance of phenomenal AI. Just because hype and amounts of money are thrown around doesn't mean the AI is up to snuff. Just look at Watson, a big nothing burger. My answer is 4000 characters, and it would not be difficult to quickly scan the answer and provide a summary while the AI is generating boilerplate. | |
| Jan 15, 2023 at 16:39 | comment | added | Ama | Perhaps your internet connection is slow or you try the bot a peak times. On my side I paste 2000 characters long articles and it starts instantly to summarize/rewrite/comment the article. The fact that Microsoft is buying 49% of it for 10 billion USD is also another good indication that this is no cheat. | |
| Jan 14, 2023 at 23:47 | comment | added | yters | @Ama When I dump a big wall of text, it cannot respond effectively, whereas the very same chunk of text broken up over multiple exchanges it can respond well. I'd assume a neural network wouldn't care whether the text is a big chunk or a back and forth dialogue. | |
| Jan 14, 2023 at 23:46 | comment | added | yters | @Ama yes, the speed is the one thing that held me back from the 'human in the loop' hypothesis. However, sometimes I see very human response rates, along with long pauses while it figures out what to say in the middle of a sentence. A hybrid AI-human approach seems plausible. The actual limiting factor is human reading speed. I never see it generating text faster than a human can read. | |
| Jan 14, 2023 at 20:36 | comment | added | Ama | Given the speed at which it reads and generates contents, I am convinced enough that now human could possibly be behind the scenes. | |
| Jan 13, 2023 at 16:41 | comment | added | ak0000 | @yters This is a bit of a thankless task for you but I think the question is getting visibility and there is probably a sizable number of less vocal people who are interested in this possibility, so thank you for your time! | |
| Jan 13, 2023 at 16:40 | comment | added | ak0000 | @yters The random number generation one is interesting, but I'm not so familiar with the token-size limitations of such systems in the first place to know why that is more surprising than other behavior | |
| Jan 13, 2023 at 16:39 | comment | added | ak0000 | @yters My concern with the first example is that self-recognition doesn't necessarily require memory, if someone believes the bot is capable of pattern recognition, then it could be capable of continuing a conversation mid-way based on what has been said so far. Only if the bot produces information that you said in a different thread independently would it be a clear proof I think | |
| Jan 11, 2023 at 21:05 | comment | added | yters | @ak0000 I've added a more quantitative example to my answer. Continuing to work on more. | |
| Jan 11, 2023 at 14:01 | history | edited | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added a second example, and gave the examples names.
|
| Jan 10, 2023 at 1:39 | comment | added | yters | I also would still like to know what I need to do to remove the warning from my answer. I added a bunch of links to reputable news sources. Also, the other answer has no warning and no links. | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 1:32 | comment | added | yters | Regarding the example in my answer, the thing that got lost in communication is these are two distinct chats in the ChatGPT UI. There isn't supposed to be any sort of cross talk between different chats. ChatGPT only has access to 2048 tokens in the current chat. So, if I paste the contents of one chat into the other, there shouldn't be any way for ChatGPT to access the original chat for back-referencing. On the other hand, a human can be involved in multiple chats, as well as simply knowing what ChatGPT responses look like. | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 1:31 | comment | added | yters | Hah, that's an article I wrote. For some reason I appear to be the only person on the entire internet proposing humans might be involved. Everyone else thinks it's crazy talk. I'll write a much longer article listing every thing I've noticed ChatGPT do that looks suspiciously human. Also, I believe I've discovered a pretty simple way for an AI-human collaboration to achieve 400+ wpm while maintaining humanlike coherence. The technique just uses a simple Markov chain. Which also leads me to suspect all the fancy neural network that OpenAI is publishing is just window dressing. | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 0:36 | comment | added | ak0000 | @yters Someone who thinks that the bot can do arbitrary pattern recognition isn't going to be so bothered by your current example. I've also heard that each request includes the entire conversation to that point as input, so maybe you could clarify why that wouldn't be sufficient for the bot to be able to make back-references | |
| Jan 9, 2023 at 23:57 | comment | added | ak0000 | Only other article I could find: mindmatters.ai/2022/12/… | |
| Jan 9, 2023 at 23:57 | comment | added | ak0000 | @yters I can't speak for anybody else, but this seems to be one of the only places on the internet discussing this in a technical fashion, so I would probably be interested in as many examples as you have and that you think are clear/self-contained – if you wanted to explain what about your knowledge of language models makes this the behavior surprising, that might also be relevant to those without extensive background knowledge. Thank you again for your time! | |
| Jan 9, 2023 at 23:54 | comment | added | ak0000 | @NeilSlater The best we can do, it seems to me, is to neither assume these examples are possible via AI nor assume they are impossible, and try to imagine what sort of model and training data could produce behavior like the ones in the question. | |
| Jan 9, 2023 at 23:51 | comment | added | ak0000 | @NeilSlater It is true that you can't disprove a conspiracy theory, but I'm worried that the argument is circular the other way also: if you assume a language model can do everything ChatGPT is doing, and you see an example that is surprising, you shrug your shoulders and say ChatGPT must be more advanced than we currently can understand. So this is also a non-falsifiable hypothesis, possibly subject to confirmation bias. | |
| Jan 9, 2023 at 23:49 | comment | added | ak0000 | @NeilSlater Hi Neil, I appreciate your time and energy laying out the case for the AI-only explanation. I did read your chat yesterday, and although I obviously can't know the truth, it seems plausible that prior ChatGPT models are good enough to handle perhaps 90% of the queries, such that human intervention for the remaining 10% or so (like my cat-dentist question) is economically feasible. So I don't think yters' answer is impossible, and on the contrary, I'm still struggling to understand how a language model would produce the examples in my question. | |
| Jan 9, 2023 at 21:02 | history | edited | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Elaborated on the most plausible explanation for my example.
|
| Jan 8, 2023 at 21:02 | history | edited | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added links to many examples of companies doing the fake AI approach.
|
| Jan 8, 2023 at 20:36 | history | edited | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
formatting
|
| Jan 8, 2023 at 20:29 | history | edited | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Formatting of answer
|
| Jan 8, 2023 at 20:23 | comment | added | yters | @ak0000 I added a recent example I encountered of ChatGPT not sticking to its limitations, highly suggesting a human behind the scenes forgetting ChatGPT's limitations. I have plenty more examples, let me know if more should be added. | |
| Jan 8, 2023 at 20:22 | history | edited | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Example of ChatGPT forgetting it cannot access separate conversations.
|
| Jan 8, 2023 at 20:07 | comment | added | yters | Why does my answer have a warning due to no sources, but the other answer with no sources has no warning? Seems inconsistent. | |
| Jan 8, 2023 at 19:35 | history | notice added | Mithical♦ | Needs citation | |
| Jan 8, 2023 at 19:24 | comment | added | Neil Slater | @ak0000 This answer is not based on reality. I suggest read the archived chat. You (or other people) not understanding how a thing can work, does not mean that it does not in fact work. You probably don't fully understand how a computer works in the first place, but you will accept it because it is commonplace (or if you have studied all layers of computing from quantum mechanics of silicon to compilers and operating systems then substitute some commonplace thing that you don't know). You want to avoid going down the same rabbit-hole of confirmation bias as the poster of this answer. | |
| Jan 8, 2023 at 17:30 | comment | added | ak0000 | @yters I think readers of your answer might be interested to hear some of the examples you listed in the chat of outputs unlikely to be automatically generated | |
| Jan 8, 2023 at 17:20 | comment | added | ak0000 | I do not see how any amount of training data would help produce those examples, and the existing answers aren't helping. I'm on the fence about accepting the answer though because we can't really know what the truth is, and I don't want to prevent further OpenAI-believers from offering explanations of how this could possibly work via AI. | |
| Jan 8, 2023 at 17:18 | comment | added | ak0000 | I personally think this is the most plausible answer. I still don't see how a language model working with past data could produce such specific sentences about a cat dentist, eg: | |
| S Jan 6, 2023 at 15:27 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Jan 6, 2023 at 15:27 | comment | added | Dennis Soemers♦ | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| Jan 5, 2023 at 17:51 | history | answered | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |