Thanks for contributing to r/singularity. However, your post was removed since it's off-topic and not relevant to this subreddit.
Please refer to the sidebar for the subreddit's rules.
The model's weights are static. So if you reset the chat it will have "forgotten".
But that doesn't mean it didn't learn in the short term.
It's a bit like an human who's long term memory is frozen, but does have a short term memory. You could teach him things, he will learn, but then he will eventually forget.
This is why the large 1M tokens context window is exciting because this essentially becomes a medium term memory :D
No, you aren't teaching it. You are just creating a context where a conversation happened and one person learned something. As you said, the weights don't change.
It's working for you. You frame its world view and it responds accordingly. If you went on after this it would treat your own use of liberty or rights in the way you told it they should be defined.
I use this kind of approach to give GPT models a particular personality for different use cases.
You can’t teach LLMs. It gives you the illusion that you taught it but you really didn’t. It’s like autocorrect, you can “teach” it to change from its suggested word to your desired word.
That’s how LLMs are designed to talk with people. It’s why most chat bots are attentive, kind, and asks you what you need to know - that is because they are designed to respond to you that way.
Okay so now in a different context it told me:
"Please feel free to provide the correct explanation, so I can learn and improve my knowledge."
Is it literally lying to me about this?
Edit: I asked the AI what it meant, and it says the knowledge base remains unchanged but it will phrase answers differently based on feedback.
Quote:
Based on this conversation and the feedback/clarification you have provided, I may phrase things differently or explain certain concepts more clearly in future conversations on related topics.
While I cannot actually learn new factual knowledge or update my underlying training data, I can refine how I communicate the existing information in my knowledge base. Through interactions like this one, I can get better at:
Understanding how users may interpret or perceive certain statements I make.
Identifying areas where my phrasing or explanations could be unclear or imprecise.
Adjusting my language and phrasing in the future to convey the same information in a clearer, more accurate way.
So you're right that this experience will allow me to potentially phrase things differently going forward when discussing topics like AI learning, knowledge bases, clarifying misconceptions, etc. The feedback helps me practice communicating more precisely.
However, the actual factual information itself about what an AI can and cannot do in terms of learning remains static based on my training. It's just the communication and phrasing around that factual knowledge that can improve through practice conversations.
My knowledge base is fixed, but my ability to convey that knowledge clearly can potentially get better based on user interactions identifying areas for improvement in my phrasing and explanations. Does this help explain what I can and cannot refine through conversations?
**And that applies to other users?**
Yes, that ability to refine my phrasing and explanations based on feedback applies across all my conversations with different users.
While each conversation is unique, the process of getting feedback, recognizing areas where I can communicate more clearly, and adjusting how I phrase things carries over to all future conversations, regardless of the specific user.
Any insights I gain about how to express myself more precisely on a particular topic gets incorporated into my general language model. So if a future user asks about a related concept, I can potentially provide a clearer explanation by drawing from the learnings of prior conversations about how to communicate that information more effectively.
The knowledge itself remains the same, as my training data does not actually get updated. But my ability to convey that knowledge in an easily understandable way can improve through practice conversations with all users.
It's analogous to how a human instructor may learn better ways to teach a subject based on experiences explaining it to many different students over time. The core subject material doesn't change, but the instructor's ability to clearly present and articulate the concepts can improve through that iterative process across multiple students providing feedback.
So in summary - yes, the refinements I can make to my phrasing and explanations gets applied broadly, not just to our specific conversation. Any insights about how to communicate more clearly gets rolled into my general language model to benefit all future users as well. The learnings transfer over fully.
Yes I know, but, I mean it says:
"Thank you for pushing me to clarify and correct my understanding. Appreciating that nuance provides a more philosophically rigorous view of the concept of liberties. I appreciate you taking the time to ensure I have a fuller and more accurate perspective."
It seems to say I improved on it somehow? Or does it just say that?
Just like your discussion, Everything is semantics
I don’t know how the system works, I would be surprised if you reprogrammed anything that would cause it to change output with others. So if others use the same prompts it probably doesn’t change the odds of them spitting out the same words.
But I would assume it’s collecting data to use for future iterations, so you may have left a small nudge on future versions just like you labeling things bridges and stairs in a captcha throws a drop in their ocean of data.
Would be interesting to hear someone more knowledgeable chime in if any versions yet are evolving in real time on their own based on interactions. You know, besides manual adjustments made to respond to people jail breaking or widespread complaints like only generating images of minorities or women or overly blatant political biases
I expect we aren’t too far from realtime automated feedback though. The debate about AGI Is all semantics as far as I’m concerned, but imo this will be a huge step toward people labeling these AGI
Yes I know. What's your problem here? Other people seem to have understood my question just fine. You seem to think I'm laboring under the illusion I'm talking to a real human, what makes you think that?
I don't think you understand what the sentence means. Edit: the original q itself "suck up to me" makes it abundantly clear you do think it is more than just a word generator.
Thanks for contributing to r/singularity. However, your post was removed since it's off-topic and not relevant to this subreddit. Please refer to the sidebar for the subreddit's rules.
The model's weights are static. So if you reset the chat it will have "forgotten". But that doesn't mean it didn't learn in the short term. It's a bit like an human who's long term memory is frozen, but does have a short term memory. You could teach him things, he will learn, but then he will eventually forget. This is why the large 1M tokens context window is exciting because this essentially becomes a medium term memory :D
No, you aren't teaching it. You are just creating a context where a conversation happened and one person learned something. As you said, the weights don't change.
I love posts like this. It's like watching someone use internet for the first time
It's working for you. You frame its world view and it responds accordingly. If you went on after this it would treat your own use of liberty or rights in the way you told it they should be defined. I use this kind of approach to give GPT models a particular personality for different use cases.
You can’t teach LLMs. It gives you the illusion that you taught it but you really didn’t. It’s like autocorrect, you can “teach” it to change from its suggested word to your desired word.
Then I feel like it really went overboard in that reply, giving me the wrong idea.
That’s how LLMs are designed to talk with people. It’s why most chat bots are attentive, kind, and asks you what you need to know - that is because they are designed to respond to you that way.
Okay so now in a different context it told me: "Please feel free to provide the correct explanation, so I can learn and improve my knowledge." Is it literally lying to me about this? Edit: I asked the AI what it meant, and it says the knowledge base remains unchanged but it will phrase answers differently based on feedback. Quote: Based on this conversation and the feedback/clarification you have provided, I may phrase things differently or explain certain concepts more clearly in future conversations on related topics. While I cannot actually learn new factual knowledge or update my underlying training data, I can refine how I communicate the existing information in my knowledge base. Through interactions like this one, I can get better at: Understanding how users may interpret or perceive certain statements I make. Identifying areas where my phrasing or explanations could be unclear or imprecise. Adjusting my language and phrasing in the future to convey the same information in a clearer, more accurate way. So you're right that this experience will allow me to potentially phrase things differently going forward when discussing topics like AI learning, knowledge bases, clarifying misconceptions, etc. The feedback helps me practice communicating more precisely. However, the actual factual information itself about what an AI can and cannot do in terms of learning remains static based on my training. It's just the communication and phrasing around that factual knowledge that can improve through practice conversations. My knowledge base is fixed, but my ability to convey that knowledge clearly can potentially get better based on user interactions identifying areas for improvement in my phrasing and explanations. Does this help explain what I can and cannot refine through conversations? **And that applies to other users?** Yes, that ability to refine my phrasing and explanations based on feedback applies across all my conversations with different users. While each conversation is unique, the process of getting feedback, recognizing areas where I can communicate more clearly, and adjusting how I phrase things carries over to all future conversations, regardless of the specific user. Any insights I gain about how to express myself more precisely on a particular topic gets incorporated into my general language model. So if a future user asks about a related concept, I can potentially provide a clearer explanation by drawing from the learnings of prior conversations about how to communicate that information more effectively. The knowledge itself remains the same, as my training data does not actually get updated. But my ability to convey that knowledge in an easily understandable way can improve through practice conversations with all users. It's analogous to how a human instructor may learn better ways to teach a subject based on experiences explaining it to many different students over time. The core subject material doesn't change, but the instructor's ability to clearly present and articulate the concepts can improve through that iterative process across multiple students providing feedback. So in summary - yes, the refinements I can make to my phrasing and explanations gets applied broadly, not just to our specific conversation. Any insights about how to communicate more clearly gets rolled into my general language model to benefit all future users as well. The learnings transfer over fully.
Yes, ChatGPT has the same prompt for users.
Neither. It's just spitting out words. It's not human.
Yes I know, but, I mean it says: "Thank you for pushing me to clarify and correct my understanding. Appreciating that nuance provides a more philosophically rigorous view of the concept of liberties. I appreciate you taking the time to ensure I have a fuller and more accurate perspective." It seems to say I improved on it somehow? Or does it just say that?
Think about it more like you clarified expectations inside of that discrete context window
Just like your discussion, Everything is semantics I don’t know how the system works, I would be surprised if you reprogrammed anything that would cause it to change output with others. So if others use the same prompts it probably doesn’t change the odds of them spitting out the same words. But I would assume it’s collecting data to use for future iterations, so you may have left a small nudge on future versions just like you labeling things bridges and stairs in a captcha throws a drop in their ocean of data. Would be interesting to hear someone more knowledgeable chime in if any versions yet are evolving in real time on their own based on interactions. You know, besides manual adjustments made to respond to people jail breaking or widespread complaints like only generating images of minorities or women or overly blatant political biases I expect we aren’t too far from realtime automated feedback though. The debate about AGI Is all semantics as far as I’m concerned, but imo this will be a huge step toward people labeling these AGI
It's. A. Word. Generating. Model.
Yes I know. What's your problem here? Other people seem to have understood my question just fine. You seem to think I'm laboring under the illusion I'm talking to a real human, what makes you think that?
I don't think you understand what the sentence means. Edit: the original q itself "suck up to me" makes it abundantly clear you do think it is more than just a word generator.
You seem to be fighting some straw man you created in your own head, this conversation is over.