Artificial Intelligence Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in conceptual questions about life and challenges in a world where "cognitive" functions can be mimicked in purely digital environment. It only takes a minute to sign up.
So I understand how a language model could scan a large data set like the internet and produce text that mimicked the statistical properties of the input data, eg completing a sentence like "eggs are healthy because ...", or producing text that sounded like the works of a certain author.
However, what I don't get about ChatGPT is that it seems to understand the commands it has been given, even if that command was not part of its training data, and can perform tasks totally separate from extrapolating more data from the given dataset. My (admittedly imperfect) understanding of machine learning doesn't really account for how such a model could follow novel instructions without having some kind of authentic understanding of the intentions of the writer, which ChatGPT seems not to have.
A clear example: if I ask "write me a story about a cat who wants to be a dentist", I'm pretty sure there are zero examples of that in the training data, so even if it has a lot of training data, how does that help it produce an answer that makes novel combinations of the cat and dentist aspects? Eg:
Despite his passion and talent, Max faced many challenges on his journey to become a dentist. For one thing, he was a cat, and most people didn't take him seriously when he told them about his dream. They laughed and told him that only humans could be dentists, and that he should just stick to chasing mice and napping in the sun.
But Max refused to give up. He knew that he had what it takes to be a great dentist, and he was determined to prove everyone wrong. He started by offering his services to his feline friends, who were more than happy to let him work on their teeth. He cleaned and polished their fangs, and he even pulled a few pesky cavities.
In the above text, the bot is writing things about a cat dentist that wouldn't be in any training data stories about cats or any training data stories about dentists.
Similarly, how can any amount of training data on computer code generally help a language model debug novel code examples? If the system isn't actually accumulating conceptual understanding like a person would, what is it accumulating from training data that it is able to solve novel prompts? It doesn't seem possible to me that you could look at the linguistic content of many programs and come away with a function that could map queries to correct explanations unless you were actually modeling conceptual understanding.
Does anyone have a way of understanding this at a high level for someone without extensive technical knowledge?
Text continuation has the same reasons to work in any context, be it the middle of a sentence, after a question or after instructions. Following your example, the same word sequence could be a good follow-up for these three prompts: "Eggs are healthy because", "Why are eggs healthy? Because" or "Tell me why eggs are healthy."
Giving a right answer sometimes happens and sometimes not, but the system does not know whether this is the case. When the answer is right, we may anthropomorphise and attribute deeper reasons, because we are used to deal with human agents that give correct answers on purpose and knowingly, not simply by maximizing some likelihood.
I think we can analyse toy systems, to train on just a few sentences to illustrate that giving a right or a wrong answer can achieved by the very same mechanism. In particular, we can build training sets where a right answer is given with an impossibility to check for validity from the written text only.
Paris is the largest city in France.
What is the largest city in France? Paris.
Paris is the capital of France.
What is the capital of France? Paris.
New York is the largest city in the USA.
What is the largest city in the USA? New York.
London is the largest city in the UK.
Asking a system trained only on this data, one could expect a wrong answer to "What is the capital of the USA?" and a right answer (although from a wrong "argument") to "What is the capital of the UK?".
The size of the training data to feed large language models is orders of magnitude larger than the above couple of handcrafted sentences, but possibly the reasons behind truthy sentences happening to be actually true are not too different from what we can already get from a controlled micro language model.
In my opinion, the simple answer is that ChatGPT uses human intervention behind the scenes. Part of the novelty of ChatGPT over previous GPT models is the use in the training phase of humans giving ChatGPT conversation pairs to learn from. ChatGPT is based on InstructGPT, and you can see this feature in the InstructGPT whitepaper.
Step 1: Collect demonstration data, and train a supervised policy. Our labelers provide demonstrations of the desired behavior on the input prompt distribution (see Section 3.2 for details on this
distribution). We then fine-tune a pretrained GPT-3 model on this data using supervised learning
If you look at the small type at the bottom of the chat window, you'll see this text:
Free Research Preview. Our goal is to make AI systems more natural and safe to interact with. Your feedback will help us improve.
One interpretation of this text is that ChatGPT is still in the training phase, and so there is a human behind the scenes typing at least some of ChatGPT's responses to train future versions of ChatGPT on the correct way to respond to user requests.
In my mind, this is a much more plausible explanation than the neural network somehow able to generate novel content not in its training corpus. I've asked a similar question, how a neural network can repeat random numbers not in its training data, and so far I'm not seeing a plausible answer.
Also, if you read down a little further, I have an example where ChatGPT explicitly states the OpenAI team is curating its responses in real time. The conversation is much too detailed and coherent to be the product of training data.
One final note. I understand people think it's implausible a big, well known, and well funded company like OpenAI would fake their AI with humans behind the scenes. However, this is standard practice for AI companies these days, a "fake it till you make it" approach where they use humans to fill the gaps in the AI in the hopes that down the road they'll automate humans out of the product. Common enough for an academic paper to be written on the topic. So there is plenty of industry precedent for OpenAI to be using humans to help craft the responses. Plus, technically OpenAI is not "faking" anything. It is the media and bloggers who think ChatGPT is a pure AI system. OpenAI has made no such claim itself, and the opposite is implied by its InstructGPT whitepaper.
Example of Explicitly Admitting Human Intervention
During this conversation ChatGPT outright states the OpenAI team filters and edits the GPT generated responses.
...the response you are receiving is being filtered and edited by the OpenAI team, who ensures that the text generated by the model is coherent, accurate and appropriate for the given prompt.
Could this be a glitch of the training data? I doubt it. If you read the rest of the conversation, ChatGPT gives detailed insights that make a lot of sense over a long, consistent conversation.
Some more excerpts.
It's possible that the OpenAI team may write responses themselves in some cases, for example if the prompt is too complex for the model to understand, or if the model generates a response that is not accurate or appropriate.
OpenAI acknowledges that its team monitors and curates the responses of GPT-3 on its website and in its documentation. This information is provided in the API documentation, as well as in the general information and frequently asked questions sections of the website. Additionally, OpenAI may have published blog posts or articles discussing the role of human curation in GPT-3's responses.
As for the live ChatGPT, it is not mentioned specifically, but it is generally understood that human oversight and curation is required for a safe and appropriate use of the model.
As for the media assuming that GPT models are fully autonomous, that's a common misconception about AI in general and not unique to OpenAI.
It is not uncommon for AI companies and researchers to have human oversight and intervention in their models, especially for models that are used in high-stakes or sensitive applications.
The human oversight of GPT-3 models, including ChatGPT, is not always made explicit to users.
While GPT-3 is a highly advanced language generation model, it is not AGI and it is not capable of understanding or maintaining a consistent persona or chain of conversation without human intervention.
Multiple Examples: Six Violations of ChatGPT's Neural Network Constraints
This article documents six violations of limitations due to ChatGPT being a neural network.
ChatGPT learns something new, violating the fixity of neural network weights.
ChatGPT inconsistent in output generation based on inputs, violating same output from same input.
ChatGPT recollects information past 4000 tokens, violating 4000 input token limit.
ChatGPT repeats long random numbers, violating probabilistic output and limited vocabulary.
ChatGPT correctly reads many corrupted subword tokens, violating mapping of embeddings to subword tokens.
ChatGPT recognizes its own writing style, violating ChatGPT's inability to recognize patterns of words.