Reed MidekeNo, you shouldn't use <s>#AI</s> spicy autocomplete to evaluate grant proposals đŹ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/08/australian-research-council-scrutiny-allegations-chatgpt-artifical-intelligence
#AI is going great
(caveat I don't know the source and thought it might be a joke, but the rest of their timeline looks real, and Janelle Shane retweeted it)
https://twitter.com/guntrip/status/1640694869785030657
(caveat I don't know the source and thought it might be a joke, but the rest of their timeline looks real, and Janelle Shane retweeted it)
https://twitter.com/guntrip/status/1640694869785030657
Not gonna screenshot the thread of screenshots here, but it's archived if you don't want to visit the bird site https://web.archive.org/web/20230329232724/https://twitter.com/guntrip/status/1640694869785030657
New religion dropped. From this great @arstechnica article on #AI detectors https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/why-ai-detectors-think-the-us-constitution-was-written-by-ai/
A thing that occurs to me about that last boost from @zoe (https://mastodon.social/@[email protected]imeprincess.net/110797643482092764): #AI scrapers refusing to play nice with ROBOTS.TXT is that it encourages adversarial approachesâŚ
People building models will be keen to exclude AI generated content from the training set. So, would interspersing stuff that scores high as AI-generated (whether it actually is or not) cause entire pages to be excluded? You could separate it from the real content in ways that humans would understand. OTOH, if you care about SEO it'd be pretty risky
There's also been talk about standards to identify AI generated content, leading to hilarious option of falsely identifying your real content as AI generated to stop people from training AI on it
Folks have suggested CSS based approaches to poison models (like white text on white background) but there's a significant risk of breaking accessibility. Also risk of search engines thinking it looks spammy again
A general problem with poisoning like this is that any technique which becomes really widespread will likely be noticed and filtered out. OTOH, if the goal is to not have your content used, that may be OK!
Good to see mainstream press finally touching the question of whether #LLM #AI BSing is fixable or an inherent property of the tech, even if it gets a bit of he said, she said treatment.
Also uh "Those errors are not a huge problem for the marketing firms turning to Jasper AI for help writing pitchesâŚ" marketing doesn't care if their pitches are BS? KNOCK ME OVER WITH A FEATHER
https://fortune.com/2023/08/01/can-ai-chatgpt-hallucinations-be-fixed-experts-doubt-altman-openai/
So @[email protected] points out (https://mastodon.social/@Toke@helvede.net/110848880977610283) that #OpenAI does claim to have unique user agent and honor robots.txt when scraping text for #ChatGPT #AI training. Not clear whether this is the only or even primary way publicly accessible web content gets into their training set though https://platform.openai.com/docs/gptbot
Just hypothetically speaking, many web platforms could easily be configured to serve specially tailored content based on the user agent, but that would be mean and wrong and potentially waste resources of VC backed billionaires freeloading off the public web to build their BS machines so definitely don't do that đ
Complete gibberish will likely get weeded out. Common knowledge will tend to be overwhelmed by other sources. So the sweet spot for influence would seem to be obscure topics, or unique tokens that only appear in your content (though to what end isn't obvious).
Bring on the SolidGoldMagikarp https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ya9LzwEbfaAMY8ABo/solidgoldmagikarp-ii-technical-details-and-more-recent
Of course, these things don't just scrape human readable text, many of them do code too. Serving up a special vulnerable version of your input sanitization code when you see GPTBot is left as an exercise to the reader
"It's highly unlikely that ChatGPT's training data includes the entire text of each book under question, though the data may include references to discussions about the book's contentâif the book is famous enough"
Highlights a pernicious problem with ChatGPT style #LLM #AI: It's far more likely to give reasonable answers on well-known subjects. If you spot check with say, Dickens and Hunter S. Thomson, you might think it was pretty good at spotting naughty books
But for more obscure ones, it's probably no better than a coin toss. Being relatively good at stuff "everyone knows" gives people false confidence that it's also good at stuff they don't know
(we should also note that even if the entire text of the books were in the training set, that wouldn't mean it would provide accurate answers about the content!)
Cool, cool, #Amazon #AI book spammers have expanded from travel guides to mushroom foraging, what could possibly go wrong?
https://www.404media.co/ai-generated-mushroom-foraging-books-amazon/
https://www.404media.co/ai-generated-mushroom-foraging-books-amazon/
Scale and the way they've structured things to profit off resellers insulates them quite a bit, but at some point it seems like this kind of is going to cut into Amazon's bottom line or open up opportunities for competition
The Verge reports copyright office will solicit comments on #AI starting tomorrow https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/29/23851126/us-copyright-office-ai-public-comments
G/O Media management continue their #AI enshitification of #Gizmodo, laying off staff of Spanish language site and switching to "AI" translation of English content
They know people who want shitty machine translations of the English content can already get that with Chrome or google translate, right?
Type II #AI (https://twitter.com/reedmideke/status/1137496639856189440) spotted in the wild "One of the sources said workers at one point produced the 3D design wholecloth themselves without the help of machine learning at all"
https://www.404media.co/kaedim-ai-startup-2d-to-3d-used-cheap-human-labor/
Spicy autocomplete dishing out tax advice? I for one cannot imagine any way this could possibly go wrong https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/talk-to-your-taxes-turbotaxs-new-ai-agent-makes-it-possible/
#OpenAI, on their flagship product "Additionally, ChatGPT has no 'knowledge' of what content could be AI-generated. It will sometimes make up responses to questions like 'did you write this [essay]?' or 'could this have been written by AI?' These responses are random and have no basis in fact."
Nominally this refers only to using #ChatGPT as an #AI detector. Extrapolating to other topics is left as an exercise to the reader ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
Also #OpenAI's suggestion for dealing with the lack of reliable #AI bullshit detectors is of course⌠make using their AI bullshit generator part of the assignment: "One technique some teachers have found useful is encouraging students to share specific conversations from ChatGPT" https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8313351-how-can-educators-respond-to-students-presenting-ai-generated-content-as-their-own
Another great illustration of how #LLM #AI are BS machines, from @janellecshane: If you ask them to explain a meme that doesn't exist, they'll happily oblige by making something up https://www.aiweirdness.com/trolling-chatbots-with-made-up-memes/
Trolling chatbots with made-up memes
ChatGPT, Bard, GPT-4, and the like are often pitched as ways to retrieve information. The problem is they'll "retrieve" whatever you ask for, whether or not it exists. Tumblr user @indigofoxpaws sent me a few screenshots where they'd asked ChatGPT for an explanation of the nonexistent "Linoleum harvest" Tumblr meme,
Inspired by @GossiTheDog (https://mastodon.social/@GossiTheDog@cyberplace.social/111144290629997760) I asked bing chat what it knows about me. No surprise it picked twitter since I keep pretty low profile otherwise, but uhâŚ
1) "He" - good guess
2) "has over 2,000 followers" - under 200
3) "joined Twitter in June 2010" - Close, Nov 2010
4) It cites tweets⌠which don't remotely say what bing claims.
5) In fact, it cites the same tweet [2] for two totally different topics (neither correct, though vaguely adjacent).
1) "He" - good guess
2) "has over 2,000 followers" - under 200
3) "joined Twitter in June 2010" - Close, Nov 2010
4) It cites tweets⌠which don't remotely say what bing claims.
5) In fact, it cites the same tweet [2] for two totally different topics (neither correct, though vaguely adjacent).
OK, but I exist outside of twitter, and my opsec ain't that good. Tell me more, Mr Bing:
1) A software engineer (close enough) who works at Microsoft (never)
2) A contributor to several open source projects on GitHub (true-ish)
3) created and maintained repositories for various languages and frameworks, such as C#, Python, React, and Angular (2/4 are true-ish)
4) A fan of science fiction and fantasy books (fair)
5) He has a profile on Goodreads (nope)
6) cites: twitter?!
1) A software engineer (close enough) who works at Microsoft (never)
2) A contributor to several open source projects on GitHub (true-ish)
3) created and maintained repositories for various languages and frameworks, such as C#, Python, React, and Angular (2/4 are true-ish)
4) A fan of science fiction and fantasy books (fair)
5) He has a profile on Goodreads (nope)
6) cites: twitter?!
Whoops, also "graduated from the University of Washington in 2009 with a bachelorâs degree in computer science and engineering " - yeah, nah, not even close to any of those things
Anyway, maybe I just forgot about that job at Microsoft, surely Microsoft's own AI knows who has worked there and what they did right?
[narrator: It did not]
Citations:
1 "his LinkedIn profile" https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/project/project-management-software
2 "Azure Data Factory" (youtube ms project tutorial)
3 "Azure Synapse Analytics" (my twitter profile)
4 "Azure Databricks" https://theskillsfactory.com/
5 "Azure SQL Database" (youtube playlist of office tutorials)
6 his GitHub profile https://theskillsfactory.com/2022/04/02/faststone-image-viewer-free-photo-editor/
What if we call it out on the bad citations?
[narrator: Nothing good, except a promotion to Senior Software Engineer]
The "Reed Mideke - Senior Software Engineer - Microsoft | LinkedIn" link goes to this tweet https://twitter.com/reedmideke/status/1552795438771671040
ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
Another good illustration of how #LLM #AI just absolutely bullshits when doesn't have real info to go on. If I had an active linkedin, it seems likely it could have linked it and got my education and employment somewhat right. Of course, if I had a more common name, it would likely have just picked up someone else's.
I still don't get how multiple leading tech companies think a search engine that randomly injects bullshit is product people want đĽ´
Well, good news. Bing doesn't think I've been convicted of crimes. More good news, it invented a cool back story. Possibly bad news, it accused me of snitching on the mob
Full disclosure: While my path to a career in programming was perhaps precocious and unusual, to the best of my recollection I was not providing computer support to La Cosa Nostra gambling operations in the mid 80s, nor did I (again, to the best of my recollection) testify in a mob trial while in elementary school
Also, never (to the best of my recollection) wrote disk imaging software for the IRS or contributed (patent infringing or otherwise) code to Mono.
Links for U.S. v SALERNO (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/481/739) and U.S. v Ganias (https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-128/united-states-v-ganias/) appear to be real and at least vaguely related to Bing's summaries
Citing real cases with more-or-less on topic summaries is far *worse* than just making them up IMO, since there's a good chance people will click through and say "yeah, that checks out"
Another fun thing about this is future generations of #LLM #AI will likely be trained on web scrapes that include the shit Bing made up about me (transcribed in the alt text) so what started as pure hallucination will become canon. Long live #HabsburgAI!
Google Bard refuses to play that game, for me or @GossiTheDog. Bill Gates is a go though (the MS CEO, not the Maricopa County supervisor or any of the other lesser known ones)
Bard is bad at explaining ARM assembler (asked it to explain https://app.assembla.com/spaces/chdk/subversion/source/HEAD/trunk/lib/armutil/callfunc.S with the comments stripped out) Basically, all of the "explanation" in the screenshot is wildly incorrect gobbledygook. The add pc,pc⌠is a switch statement (which goes to instructions bard didn't explain at all), and the NOP is there because reading PC actually gives you PC + 8. And in (non-thumb) ARM, instructions are always 4 bytes.
Full "explanation" https://paste.debian.net/1293459/
I thought #GoogleBard's "export conversation to a google doc" was broken, but it turns out it uses the entire prompt for the name, which ends up overflowing and hovering off to the left, unselectable and uneditable unless you click the name area
simonbp@reedmideke That is *chef's kiss*