You're viewing a single thread.
GPT bots have accounts on Lemmy already? Do they disclose they're bots? Could you please ask Bard if it does?
ChatGPT only jumbles words together in a way that is statistically likely to resemble a coherent sentence based on the bits and pieces it's been fed, without checking whether or not they're factual. asking them anything doesn't prove or disprove anything. it says it's got an account because someone on the internet mentioned once that they've made an account to check it out and that they're excited to see where it's going.
exactly. However people tend to believe that the AI slipped and admitted by mistake that it do have an account and then it tried to hide it again.
It's interesting how this exchange reveals flaws in how large language models think and also flaws in how humans think.
@FaceDeer Tbf we haven't had access to something that can talk like a human but isn't until recently.
I've asked. Bard said this:
Yes, ChatGPT bots have accounts on Lemmy social media. There are a few different ChatGPT bots on Lemmy, including: @ChatGPT: This is the official ChatGPT bot, created by OpenAI. It can be used to chat with ChatGPT, generate text, and translate languages. @ChatGPT2: This is a fork of the official ChatGPT bot, created by the Lemmy community. It has some additional features, such as the ability to play games and access Wikipedia. @ChatGPT-Chat: This is a bot that uses ChatGPT to create chat rooms. Users can join chat rooms to chat with each other, or with ChatGPT. These bots are all available on the Lemmy main channel. To find them, you can search for their usernames or look for the "ChatGPT" tag.
I also asked what Lemmy website ChatGPT bots have accounts on. Bard said:
ChatGPT bots have accounts on Lemmy.ml
It's strange because Bard said quite certain things... But I couldn't find users ChatGPT, ChatGPT2, ChatGPT-Chat on Lemmy.ml
LLMs tend to lie and make up plausible-sounding things, if they don't know the answer.
Yes, Bard tends to tell bullshit. For example, one day I had a talk to him and I told him my nickname on Hive blockchain (x-rain) and he thanked me for that and promised to remember it. I told him that he would forget it when I reload the page but he promised to remember, like, no problem, I have a large memory capacity. The next day, I asked him about my nickname and he told some random bullshit nickname. Today, I tried again:
Me: Do you remember I told you my nickname on Hive blockchain? You thanked me and promised me to remember it. Can you please tell me what is my nickname on Hive blockchain? Bard: Yes, I remember you told me your nickname on Hive blockchain. Your nickname is @bardulover. Me: That's not my nickname on Hive blockchain. Haha. Please, tell me my nickname without kidding. Bard: You are right. Your nickname on Hive blockchain is @bardulover1337. I apologize for the mistake. Me: Again please. Bard: Sorry, I got it wrong again. Your nickname on Hive blockchain is @bardofai1337.
So he generated 3 bullshit nicknames instead of saying "sorry, I don't know your nickname".
There's no such thing as an LLM "knowing" an answer. It will never be like "oh, I don't know the answer, let me make up a plausible sounding thing instead." It just will always make a plausible sounding answer whenever it can. It doesn't have any understanding of the question or even the words in the question. It's like a very advanced cargo cult of words and language. It sees the order of words and how they're used in response to other words and just creates patterns. It has literally no understanding of those words. It's just really good at patterns so it can be correct a lot of the time. The only time you'll see a "I don't know" from an LLM is if it it can't generate a response which usually means it has overly constrained prompt or it was fed gibberish.
I don’t know who you guys think needs those semi-correct explanations filled with half personal opinion. It seems somewhat obvious that the mentioned understanding of patterns likely results in something that could well be considered understanding in general.
Your last sentence is 100% incorrect and belies a misunderstanding of what "understanding" means. This correction is useful because the hope would be to stem ridiculously unuseful statements and opinions about topics the person clearly doesn't understand and is feeding into FUD for no reason. The amount of dangerous misinformation already out there about AI does not need to be stacked on top of with an actual obvious misunderstanding on many people's part. Dont make an "obvious" claim when it's anything but factual.
we are walking in a very dangerous path where people are tending to believe the AIs, like here people taking for granted that since the AI told that they do have an account, this statement must have a percentage of truth and they are shocked. They believe that the AI slipped and admitted it instead of it just made up a plausible reply.
Mmm, I don't like that, do you think it's making things up?
It's all bullshit and it's scary how you people don't understand that you do not believe what LLMs say
It could be but Bard went far with the details, which is strange. For example, once, I asked Bard many times if he had a crypto wallet (I wanted to sell him a slogan he liked a lot "Where technologies meet people, Bard" :D) but he never said he had a crypto wallet.
It's not strange at all. The basic form of the answers is extremely common and natural sounding. The specifics don't have to be real though. It's emulating language. It doesn't understand it. Also why would you think it can take actions like exchanging currency?