you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 73 points 9 months ago* (5 children)

However, when testing the models in a set of scenarios that the authors said were “representative” of real uses of ChatGPT, the intervention appeared less effective, only reducing deception rates by a factor of two. “We do not yet fully understand why a larger reduction was not observed,” wrote the researchers.

Translation: "We have no idea what the fuck we're doing or how any of this shit actually works lol. Also we might be the ones scheming since we have vested interest in making these models sound more advanced than they actually are."

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    That's the thing about machine learning models. You can't always control what their optimizing. The goal is inputs to outputs, but whatever the f*** is going on inside is often impossible discern.

    This is dressing it up under some sort of expectation of competence. The word scheming is a lot easier to deal with than just s*****. The former means that it's smart and needs to be rained in. The latter means it's not doing its job particularly well, and the purveyors don't want you to think that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    To be fair, you can't control what humans optimize what you're trying to teach them either. A lot of times they learn the opposite of what you're trying to teach them. I've said it before but all they managed to do with LLMs is make a computer that's just as unreliable (if not moreso) than your below-average human.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    As somebody who spent my life studying AI, these are remarkably different things.

    Machine learning models are basically brute forcing things. Humans have the ability to actually think.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments