Reed MidekeOn that CNET thing in the last boost, my first thought was "this is gonna make search even more useless" and… yeeeep "They are clearly optimized to take advantage of Google’s search algorithms, and to end up at the top of peoples’ results pages"
I guess on the plus side, it'll encourage search engines to put resources into detecting AI generated garbage? Because even if CNET is eventually shamed into quitting, blackhat SEOers are gonna be all over it
Man this just gets wilder. If accurate, CNET pretty much already went full blackhat SEO https://futurism.com/cnet-ai-articles-label
Surprise! The dudes turning CNET into a low rent SEO farm weren't too picky about the quality of their "AI" https://futurism.com/cnet-ai-plagiarism
Kicker in the latest installment in @jonchristian's coverage of the CNET AI saga… private equity bro's solution to the AI scandal is to rebrand their "AI" as "Tooling" (we also get confirmation said "tooling" comes from OpenAI)
Mia Sato also has an incredibly damning dig into the SEO-farmification of CNET
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/2/23582046/cnet-red-ventures-ai-seo-advertisers-changed-reviews-editorial-independence-affiliate-marketing
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/2/23582046/cnet-red-ventures-ai-seo-advertisers-changed-reviews-editorial-independence-affiliate-marketing
Nice @cfiesler article on prompt hacking. Kinda boggles my mind that in the year 2023, a bunch of the biggest names in tech decided that free-form, in-band commands were an acceptable way to control these things.
Yes I realize the nature of the tech makes it very hard to do otherwise, but still… did y'all sleep through the last 20 years of SQL injection and XSS?
https://kotaku.com/chatgpt-ai-openai-dan-censorship-chatbot-reddit-1850088408
Not like I'd trust human written medical advice in these rags, but of all the topic to hand over to a bullshit machine, this seems like an especially poor one
https://futurism.com/neoscope/magazine-mens-journal-errors-ai-health-article
https://futurism.com/neoscope/magazine-mens-journal-errors-ai-health-article
Post from @opencage is a good illustration of how these things are (Frankfurtian sense) bullshit machines. If users asked about the goecoding service opencage actually offers, there's a fair chance they could get a reasonable answer. Ask about an adjacent, but non-existent service, and ChatGPT makes one up based on similar things in the training set https://blog.opencagedata.com/post/dont-believe-chatgpt
LLMs are genuinely amazing, but a lot of people hyping them seem assume this kind of thing is just a bug that needs to be fixed ("We're 90% of the way there, just have to clean up these last few issues!") rather than an inherent characteristic of the technology… optimism which does not seem to be justified on any technical or theoretical grounds
Ah yes, ChatGPT bot integrated into Discord, what could possibly go wrong?
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/discord-hops-the-generative-ai-train-with-chatgpt-style-tools/
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/discord-hops-the-generative-ai-train-with-chatgpt-style-tools/
This is wild. There's been a lot of overblown hype about the threat of AI in disinfo but this is one I expected: Flooding the zone with superficially plausible looking sources / backstory, so human created content will look well sourced to people who don't check. Yet somehow even stupider and lazier than I imagined. Anyway, reminder The Grayzone is trash https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1635666413510701057
"Microsoft announced Tuesday that the Bing AI chatbot, released last month, had been using GPT-4 all along"- wait, the new AI hype thing is actually the old AI hype thing everyone was dunking on last week? https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/14/gpt-4-has-arrived-it-will-blow-chatgpt-out-water/
Also, I really wish @drewharwell would have pushed OpenAI to describe more specifically what they mean by "advanced reasoning capabilities" … how do they define "reasoning"? Is there some objective or theoretical basis to assert LLMs can "reason" in the conventional sense of the word?
#OpenAI admits #GPT4 "still makes many of the errors of previous versions, including 'hallucinating' nonsense, perpetuating social biases and offering bad advice" but implies (largely unchallenged in the press) that these are merely bugs to be fixed, not fundamental characteristics of the technology
"we translated the MMLU benchmark—a suite of 14,000 multiple-choice problems spanning 57 subjects—into a variety of languages using Azure Translate"
So they tested multi-lingual capability… using ML based machine translations? All those billions in venture capital, and they're to f-ing cheap to hire human translators? https://openai.com/research/gpt-4
So they tested multi-lingual capability… using ML based machine translations? All those billions in venture capital, and they're to f-ing cheap to hire human translators? https://openai.com/research/gpt-4
GPT-4
We’ve created GPT-4, the latest milestone in OpenAI’s effort in scaling up deep learning. GPT-4 is a large multimodal model (accepting image and text inputs, emitting text outputs) that, while less capable than humans in many real-world scenarios, exhibits human-level performance on various professional and academic benchmarks.
I mean, maybe all 14k problems in every language is too much, but at least use a human validated subset?
So @Riedl found you can trivially influence bing chat with hidden text
Thought one: Whoohoo, we've re-invented early 2000s keyword stuffing
https://mastodon.social/@Riedl@sigmoid.social/110058596766522240
Thought two: If you could convince bing to produce arbitrary output in a response, what's the worst you can do? Just some Bing-specific text? XSS is presumably out (barring bugs, the app has to be prepared for arbitrary output anyway). Can you make it generate a url that leaks some information about the chatter?
Anyway, bing chat apparently doesn't have a good memory, but will cheerfully lie about it
This from @cfarivar on the other site is also a great illustration of how these things confidently make stuff up https://twitter.com/cfarivar/status/1638211525449248770
I remain baffled as to why anyone would want their search results summarized in conversational language by an extremely confident bullshitter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
One argument is "they're getting better so eventually they'll be good enough" but, without some fundamental grounding in fact, does reducing the amount of *obvious* bullshit make them reliable, or just train them to produce more subtle bullshit, or only bullshit on more obscure topics?
Like, saying Novato and Santa Monica are 80 miles apart is a big obvious error, but is a model that gets that right, but makes similar errors about small, obscure towns in the midwest "better" ?
And again, who needs this (previous boost, lack of QT really really ain't great for running threads like this)? Also, while the other answers seem roughly correct, how sure would you be without googling? And if you have to google each one, what's the point? https://mastodon.social/@caseynewton/110063518076189757