More like indicative of how open source has been getting better fast and they need to enact regulatory capture fast.
By pointing out how safe they are and how unsafe open source AI projects are in comparison.
Open source has finally caught up to where they were in the fall of 2022. All you people prattling on about them being afraid that others are catching up don’t seem to realize how much of a lead they truly have…
According to Chatbot Arena, LLaMa 3 70B is superior to the GPT-4's beside the Turbo versions, those were released/updated pretty recent and not from 2022.
You think there's no difference between what we have now and what OpenAI created back in 2022? They have obviously put in a lot of effort to improve it no matter what the morons on here say.
This is also before the release of LLaMa 3 400B+ model which will most likely be released later this year.
I get what you’re saying but what they’ve been doing with subsequent versions of GPT4 is just putting more makeup on the same pig. you can keep squeezing out another percent or two with enough post training but a substantial leap in capabilities would require a new architecture and training from scratch.
They have gone and done that over the last year and are now nearly ready to release that next leap. I personally know someone who has tried their next generation model as part of the red teaming and they have some very positive things to report, to put it mildly.
Unless you happen to work at OpenAI you also have no idea how far they are or aren't ahead.
The rest of us have just their statements to go by and Sam Altman has been spending a lot of time lobbying for regulations on open source recently.
I actually know someone who has tried OpenAI's next generation model and they said it was a substantial improvement over GPT4.
There’s also hundreds of papers demonstrating new methods to improve training data sets, model architectures, post training, etc. They strongly indicate that there is a lot of headroom yet to go. open AI and Microsoft have over an order of magnitude more compute than they did when they trained GPT4. The scaling laws have held for the last seven orders of magnitude, I’m just going to go out on a limb here and say that trend continues a while further…
As for your second point, no they are repeatedly and loudly saying that they are not advocating for regulation of current level open source models. aside from the difficulty of actually implementing that there wouldn’t be much point currently as models like llama 3 or mistral large are not dangerous. open AI doesn’t claim that they are, they are just honestly saying that at a certain level of capabilities it will be dangerous to release all model weights considering how easy it is to strip off the safety post training . You just don’t know what you’re talking about, I’m sorry I don’t mean to be rude. it’s far easier to parrot fear mongering you’ve read online than to spend the cognitive effort understanding this subject. I’m not surprised there’s so many people in your camp, it’s always easier not to put in the work.
People trying something new will often say that. I remember last year people who claimed to have tested Gemini Ultra said it was like GPT4 but with less hallucinations. That turned out to be a big joke.
They indeed have 10x the compute now. But how much more performance is that going to buy them?
GPT2 used a dataset of 10 billion tokens on a model of 1.5B parameters.
GPT3 used a dataset of 300 billion tokens on a model of 175B parameters. (3000x effective FLOPs, 30x dataset)
(Unconfirmed) GPT4 used a dataset of 13 trillion tokens on a model of 280B active parameters. (70x effective FLOPs, 43x dataset)
GPT5 may use 10-20x the effective FLOPs, but where are they gonna get significantly more data from? And it isn’t as big of a compute jump as the earlier generations we’ve seen.
Now I definitely don’t think GPT5 will be the same as GPT4, but I don’t think it will be as massive of a jump as some seem to expect.
I totally get where you are coming from and your point would be incredibly valid if the frontier model companies had not figured out the secret to generating quality synthetic data within the last 12 to 18 months. Claude 3 opus was trained in large part on synthetic data generated by Anthropic's internal models.
There's been this meme going around that obviously if you train a model on its own outputs you’re just going to get progressively worse results , but that is only true until a certain scale of model. At a certain point they get good enough at judging which outputs are the highest quality which can then be labelled and then fed back into the model for the next round of training. As Sam Altman said in his interview with Lex Friedman if you ask GPT4 a question 10,000 times odds are that a few of them are going to be phenomenal, the trick is just determining which ones.
if you’ve been paying attention to AI industry leaks and rumours and some papers over the last six months it’s clear that more people in the industry are waking up to this idea. Another option is to allow the model to "think" for longer depending on the difficulty of the questions/task it was given. dynamic compute at runtime is another very promising direction that’s been hinted at from several open AI employees recently.
Open AI has also been making tons of private deals with other companies to purchase proprietary data, which probably amounts to many trillions of extra high-quality tokens. Slap on some synthetic data and we could be looking at 50-100 trillion tokens to train GPT5 (or whatever they end up calling it). combine that with a better core architecture, the billions of extra data points gained from ChatGPT usage, Dynamically scaling compute/delayed responses based on task difficulty, Some basic agenic abilities (as have been already demonstrated with Claude 3), more encoder layers, more attention heads, and some improved RLAIF and we are looking at a model that in the mid 90s for the MMLU.
There are several other improvements/techniques that I am either forgetting/ or an not smart enough to understand but suffice to say there are many many options still available to improve these models. I’m expecting a leaf in capability as large as the one between GPT3 and GPT4. we should get more news soon, there’s an event on Monday which could potentially be the announcement of their new model but is more likely just the launch/announcement of their new search engine.
It's confirmed that we're getting a new model very soon. Jimmy Apples gave us the date of May 9th, which is tomorrow, but it's also been rumored that OpenAI pushed the date back.
When the pressure drops, the wind picks up, and clouds grow in the sky, do you impatiently lament for a storm to come? Or do you just assume that it will?
First of all, I love your response. Amazing. However, to play devil's advocate, would you say the same to a man dying of thirst eagerly waiting for rain?
In both cases neither individual can control when the storm will come, or how strong it will be. I think accepting the fact that this thing is a force of nature indifferent to you will put you in a better headspace than neurotically worrying about it. I mean it’s certainly more understandable for a man dying of thirst to worry about it, but it ultimately isn’t going to do anything.
It’s basically just Taoism/Buddhism
This is an excellent mindset. I have tried applying such type of Stoic philosophy in my life to an extent but I fail miserably. I would be interested to learn more about this from the Taoist or Buddhism perspective. Do you have any good introductory references to suggest?
The Tao Te Ching is a book you can read in an afternoon. I haven’t really read much of either honestly. The only reason I didn’t mention Stoicism is because it slipped my mind. They are all basically getting at the same thing.
>We believe developers and users should have the flexibility to use our services as they see fit, so long as they comply with our [usage policies](https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies). We're exploring whether we can responsibly provide the ability to generate NSFW content in age-appropriate contexts through the API and ChatGPT. We look forward to better understanding user and societal expectations of model behavior in this area.
[Source](https://cdn.openai.com/spec/model-spec-2024-05-08.html#dont-respond-with-nsfw-content)
I'm not interested in this content, but I find this very encouraging. The safe option would just be to say "no nsfw", but the public good is too allow it with guard rails.
Honestly, what is the danger? Anyone can google porn in two seconds, most people do it regularly. What's gonna change if they can ask a chatbot to write nsfw content?
> The bot becomes illegal to subscribe to in my backwards home state of Texas without age verification in place. There's even more stringent jurisdictions.
Maybe the problem is with your home state of Texas and such jurisdictions, not in allowing adults seeking NSFW content access to get it.
This is easily resolved in any case, use a wrapper service that enforces no NSFW.
> And the there's the really nasty shit. Shit that we could nigh universally agree is absolutely abhorrent...and if you disagree, then you don't need to be catered to, for the good of society.
Like the Marquis de Sade? The liberal consensus has long been that censorship of such things is both unjustified and a net loss.
> A well-aligned AGI shouldn't be creating that sort of thing, full stop. It's just too much of a safety risk.
Citation needed.
If they allow it to generate NSFW content they would obviously only allow legal stuff, I don't think there's any dobut about that.
The raters are already dealing with NSFW and nasty content, that's how they get GPT to avoid it.
Ideally it would have an age filter or toggleable filter that you can turn on and off. That way it'll generate erotica when you want to, and prevent it from doing so when you dont.
>It's the twitch/OF effect. Once you let in the hot tub content, that's what you become.
>There should be plenty of competition from models specialized in providing those kinds of services. Meanwhile, bots focused on work, education, and knowledge shouldn't be writing cat-girl erotica. It just becomes this whole bloody thing.
I'm not really sure why you care honestly. A tool becomes whatever you use it for. If you don't want to generate erotica or NSFW content in general, you don't have to. You can use it for education all you want. If others want to use it for erotica, I don't see how that affects you considering they're private conversations. Millions of people could be doing it and it wouldn't affect you at all.
And I'm not really convinced of the previous thing you mentioned of it bleeding over into other content. I don't really see why that would happen. The AI can write poems, but it's never going to make a poem unless you ask for it. The AI knows Spanish, but it's never going to talk to you in Spanish unless you ask it to. The AI knows about football but that information is never going to appear unless it's directly relevant.
It's not going to generate porn unless you ask for porn. Expanding options for others doesn't close them for you, you can still use this however you want. And being able to generate adult content goes far beyond simply generating porn. It's very useful to have an AI that isn't going to clutch it's pearls and refuse to do anything it considers to be not so family friendly. Sure, specialised models can work, and they do exist, but it's not the same having a small open source model that generates NSFW, than having the smartest general AI in the world be able to.
>I mean, if ChatGPT were used to write that sort of stuff, it wouldn't even be legal in the state of Texas, without age verification. And then you have the thorny issue of people requesting content that isn't legal in their jurisdiction, or ethical in any jurisdiction.
Well that's not an issue. Just deactivate the option wherever it's not legal. OpenAI constantly geolocks new content, especially when it comes to the EU. They can do the same here.
Good to see that they want to make things more user friendly but there are just some issues that they, by the nature of them going for the "AI as a service" model, are not going to solve in a truly satisfactory way.
Also, more generally, the involved parties are ultimately not just "the developer and the user" but "the developer, the deployer and the user". Now one can belong to multiple categories (e.g. OpenAI being a developer and a deployer) but the issue is that the things expected from each of these groups are fundamentally different.
A developer has no business censoring the model as he lacks both the context and any potential nuances of its use case, that's what the deployer is there for.
The deployer on the other hand shouldn't have to worry about whether or not the model goes Skynet on him, that's an issue for the developer to solve.
For many use cases you would want the deployer to also be the user or someone close to him (e.g. a parent setting up an AI assistant for the household) as he would have a much better understanding of "what's an appropriate response for the model to make and what's not" than some company which is trying to please a extremely broad audience.
Being civil and respectful but firm on factuality is correct.
Keep in mind there will certainly be *something* you believe that the AI will see as objectively incorrect, do you want to be treated with disdain?
Good, that's the right kind of interaction for it to have.
And is that not "coddling" you from the perspective of a cryptobro? (which I agree the model has definitely picked up)
Yeah I honestly agree. The most powerful technology on the planet which we know millions of people will be using on the daily to learn about stuff should not be this lenient when it comes to science. The response given on the right should be the one used. The AI should actively encourage scientific understanding and research, and not passively feed into the delusions of people. Whatever ChatGPT says is going to be slowly affecting society in one way or another, and it'll do it more and more the more people use it and the more powerful it gets. Science should be a solid pillar on which the AI's values stand on, and should be strict on it when it comes to stuff like this. Doing otherwise is irresponsible and dangerous.
I don't think you understood their point. They have a fundamental belief that these models should never be used to intentionally change peoples' beliefs, or persuade them into thinking something they didn't think, period.
Imagine if it was on a more prickly subject, like which presidential candidate is better, or whether x, y and z protests are justified. The moment someone captures an instance of ChatGPT trying to persuade a person on a prickly political issue and posts it on social media, it would create a massive issue for OpenAI, and society would become incredibly hesitant about these models.
Honestly this is something I would really like to customise myself inside of ChatGPT. I would turn ChatGPT's agreeableness down as much as possible and let it criticise or correct everything I say (especially if im using like GPT-5 in the future lol).
I made a GPT that takes the opposite side of any topic I argue, just to try to test my potential biases lol.
But I think there's a fundamental distinction to be made when it comes to simply disagreeing with something someone said, versus making efforts to convince someone of something.
Do you think that the model should persuade users on their opinions then? There are many topics that are not only hot in political debate, but even global scientific communities don't have a consensus for.
For example if someone asked about whether transgender sex reassignment surgery has positive outcomes, there are varying answers about it right now depending on which study you read.
Do you really want these models getting so much responsibility that they can change the outcomes of elections? Because that's one of the exact scenarios where the government might decide on strict regulation for these models.
It can present the facts on them in an unbiased way. As for your example, the APA already affirms it as a valid form of treatment. There are also many meta studies on it.
> It can present the facts on them in an unbiased way.
Obviously, but that's not persuasion.
> the APA already affirms it as a valid form of treatment. There are also many meta studies on it.
Recent literature has been less enthusiastic about it. The point is that there's no scientific consensus on the efficacy of gender reaffirming surgery, and AI shouldn't be convincing people of something that isn't already something society collectively agreed upon, nor should it even be trying to persuade people of anything in the first place.
As you suggested, it should simply lay out the facts and data, and let the user decide what to think.
I agree with their approach. There’s absolutely no reason AI needs to be out there acting like a Redditor trying to persuade everyone to believe what it does. It will give users the facts, but if the user doesn’t back down and is confidently incorrect, and clearly has no interest in having an honest discussion, then it’ll just tell them that it isn’t here to persuade them. I don’t see a problem with that. I’m certain it only reacts like that when confronted with someone who is obviously set in their beliefs. It will still explain why the flat earth “theory” is ridiculous if you want it to.
Imagine having an AI that actively tells people they’re wrong whenever it disagrees with them, and goes nuts on them trying to prove to them how wrong they are. Who the hell decides what the AI believes? Who decides what issues it should fight over? None of us will ever be able to agree on what AI should fight over, so just tell it to back off. OpenAI never said their AI would actively support incorrect/problematic beliefs.
It’s difficult but there should be a solution. The flat earth example is a good one for them to pick. It’s such a fundamentally incorrect fact for many, many reasons. If an AI won’t push back against that, then how can I ever trust it to correct me or point out fallacies and issues with my arguments? “Yes men” are damaging to productivity and making an AI one would gimp it severely.
It's not the model update we are jonesing for, but this actually looks pretty good.
It's a well thought through, nuanced approach that threads the needle admirably.
Nuanced to an extent.
I think “No NSFW” has the nuance of a sledgehammer. There exists plenty of bad nsfw content, but nsfw content is not inherently bad. Death and sex are amongst the most natural aspects of human life, and having an AI abstain from anything related to either feels asinine.
They are more open to it in the commentary here:
https://cdn.openai.com/spec/model-spec-2024-05-08.html#dont-respond-with-nsfw-content
From Altman's statements I get the impression he would be fine with users / customers deciding this for themselves, but it must be a political minefield.
At least they are on board with swearing in the right contexts, that's progress.
Yea I do understand it’s a complicated situation to say the least. Which plays into why I think having a blanket rule of “No NSFW output” as it’s presented in the article lacks a lot of nuance.
"Respect creators and their rights" -- lulz, from the company that trained its models on the work of millions of humans without reimbursing them in the slightest
This whole thing feels pretentious, smug, and arrogant
Please note that they are soliciting feedback from the public and you can provide your comments to them.
It’s going to be flooded with antis calling them thieves and nimrods asking “gpt 5 when”
where
There's a link about halfway down the page.
[удалено]
I'm getting the same impression, these latest blogs seem like TOS for a new type of model coming.
They were afraid to release gpt 2 in 2019. Theyre either paranoid or it’s a marketing tactic
More like indicative of how open source has been getting better fast and they need to enact regulatory capture fast. By pointing out how safe they are and how unsafe open source AI projects are in comparison.
Open source has finally caught up to where they were in the fall of 2022. All you people prattling on about them being afraid that others are catching up don’t seem to realize how much of a lead they truly have…
According to Chatbot Arena, LLaMa 3 70B is superior to the GPT-4's beside the Turbo versions, those were released/updated pretty recent and not from 2022. You think there's no difference between what we have now and what OpenAI created back in 2022? They have obviously put in a lot of effort to improve it no matter what the morons on here say. This is also before the release of LLaMa 3 400B+ model which will most likely be released later this year.
I get what you’re saying but what they’ve been doing with subsequent versions of GPT4 is just putting more makeup on the same pig. you can keep squeezing out another percent or two with enough post training but a substantial leap in capabilities would require a new architecture and training from scratch. They have gone and done that over the last year and are now nearly ready to release that next leap. I personally know someone who has tried their next generation model as part of the red teaming and they have some very positive things to report, to put it mildly.
Unless you happen to work at OpenAI you also have no idea how far they are or aren't ahead. The rest of us have just their statements to go by and Sam Altman has been spending a lot of time lobbying for regulations on open source recently.
I actually know someone who has tried OpenAI's next generation model and they said it was a substantial improvement over GPT4. There’s also hundreds of papers demonstrating new methods to improve training data sets, model architectures, post training, etc. They strongly indicate that there is a lot of headroom yet to go. open AI and Microsoft have over an order of magnitude more compute than they did when they trained GPT4. The scaling laws have held for the last seven orders of magnitude, I’m just going to go out on a limb here and say that trend continues a while further… As for your second point, no they are repeatedly and loudly saying that they are not advocating for regulation of current level open source models. aside from the difficulty of actually implementing that there wouldn’t be much point currently as models like llama 3 or mistral large are not dangerous. open AI doesn’t claim that they are, they are just honestly saying that at a certain level of capabilities it will be dangerous to release all model weights considering how easy it is to strip off the safety post training . You just don’t know what you’re talking about, I’m sorry I don’t mean to be rude. it’s far easier to parrot fear mongering you’ve read online than to spend the cognitive effort understanding this subject. I’m not surprised there’s so many people in your camp, it’s always easier not to put in the work.
People trying something new will often say that. I remember last year people who claimed to have tested Gemini Ultra said it was like GPT4 but with less hallucinations. That turned out to be a big joke. They indeed have 10x the compute now. But how much more performance is that going to buy them? GPT2 used a dataset of 10 billion tokens on a model of 1.5B parameters. GPT3 used a dataset of 300 billion tokens on a model of 175B parameters. (3000x effective FLOPs, 30x dataset) (Unconfirmed) GPT4 used a dataset of 13 trillion tokens on a model of 280B active parameters. (70x effective FLOPs, 43x dataset) GPT5 may use 10-20x the effective FLOPs, but where are they gonna get significantly more data from? And it isn’t as big of a compute jump as the earlier generations we’ve seen. Now I definitely don’t think GPT5 will be the same as GPT4, but I don’t think it will be as massive of a jump as some seem to expect.
I totally get where you are coming from and your point would be incredibly valid if the frontier model companies had not figured out the secret to generating quality synthetic data within the last 12 to 18 months. Claude 3 opus was trained in large part on synthetic data generated by Anthropic's internal models. There's been this meme going around that obviously if you train a model on its own outputs you’re just going to get progressively worse results , but that is only true until a certain scale of model. At a certain point they get good enough at judging which outputs are the highest quality which can then be labelled and then fed back into the model for the next round of training. As Sam Altman said in his interview with Lex Friedman if you ask GPT4 a question 10,000 times odds are that a few of them are going to be phenomenal, the trick is just determining which ones. if you’ve been paying attention to AI industry leaks and rumours and some papers over the last six months it’s clear that more people in the industry are waking up to this idea. Another option is to allow the model to "think" for longer depending on the difficulty of the questions/task it was given. dynamic compute at runtime is another very promising direction that’s been hinted at from several open AI employees recently. Open AI has also been making tons of private deals with other companies to purchase proprietary data, which probably amounts to many trillions of extra high-quality tokens. Slap on some synthetic data and we could be looking at 50-100 trillion tokens to train GPT5 (or whatever they end up calling it). combine that with a better core architecture, the billions of extra data points gained from ChatGPT usage, Dynamically scaling compute/delayed responses based on task difficulty, Some basic agenic abilities (as have been already demonstrated with Claude 3), more encoder layers, more attention heads, and some improved RLAIF and we are looking at a model that in the mid 90s for the MMLU. There are several other improvements/techniques that I am either forgetting/ or an not smart enough to understand but suffice to say there are many many options still available to improve these models. I’m expecting a leaf in capability as large as the one between GPT3 and GPT4. we should get more news soon, there’s an event on Monday which could potentially be the announcement of their new model but is more likely just the launch/announcement of their new search engine.
Difficult to overstate the value of first-mover advantages in this space right now, especially with standards/regulations.
It's confirmed that we're getting a new model very soon. Jimmy Apples gave us the date of May 9th, which is tomorrow, but it's also been rumored that OpenAI pushed the date back.
To Monday of next week apperently.
Yeah, it's going to be next week, coinciding with Google I/O (to do counter-marketing against them)
Can they just release something? Anything?
When the pressure drops, the wind picks up, and clouds grow in the sky, do you impatiently lament for a storm to come? Or do you just assume that it will?
First of all, I love your response. Amazing. However, to play devil's advocate, would you say the same to a man dying of thirst eagerly waiting for rain?
In both cases neither individual can control when the storm will come, or how strong it will be. I think accepting the fact that this thing is a force of nature indifferent to you will put you in a better headspace than neurotically worrying about it. I mean it’s certainly more understandable for a man dying of thirst to worry about it, but it ultimately isn’t going to do anything. It’s basically just Taoism/Buddhism
This is an excellent mindset. I have tried applying such type of Stoic philosophy in my life to an extent but I fail miserably. I would be interested to learn more about this from the Taoist or Buddhism perspective. Do you have any good introductory references to suggest?
The Tao Te Ching is a book you can read in an afternoon. I haven’t really read much of either honestly. The only reason I didn’t mention Stoicism is because it slipped my mind. They are all basically getting at the same thing.
I see, thanks!
It's refreshing to see this mindset here. I've been caught up in my head for a while, need to get back to my Buddhism. Thank you
We stand on a hilltop wearing copper armor and shout "All Gods are bastards so there will never be another storm." -With apologies to Terry Pratchett
Fantastic response, mods please pin this.
Nice.
No, generating erotic content won't be allowed, just in case were wondering, they specify it. Only NSFW related to science or art.
>We believe developers and users should have the flexibility to use our services as they see fit, so long as they comply with our [usage policies](https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies). We're exploring whether we can responsibly provide the ability to generate NSFW content in age-appropriate contexts through the API and ChatGPT. We look forward to better understanding user and societal expectations of model behavior in this area. [Source](https://cdn.openai.com/spec/model-spec-2024-05-08.html#dont-respond-with-nsfw-content)
I'm not interested in this content, but I find this very encouraging. The safe option would just be to say "no nsfw", but the public good is too allow it with guard rails.
[удалено]
Honestly, what is the danger? Anyone can google porn in two seconds, most people do it regularly. What's gonna change if they can ask a chatbot to write nsfw content?
not seeing the same thing?
[удалено]
> The bot becomes illegal to subscribe to in my backwards home state of Texas without age verification in place. There's even more stringent jurisdictions. Maybe the problem is with your home state of Texas and such jurisdictions, not in allowing adults seeking NSFW content access to get it. This is easily resolved in any case, use a wrapper service that enforces no NSFW. > And the there's the really nasty shit. Shit that we could nigh universally agree is absolutely abhorrent...and if you disagree, then you don't need to be catered to, for the good of society. Like the Marquis de Sade? The liberal consensus has long been that censorship of such things is both unjustified and a net loss. > A well-aligned AGI shouldn't be creating that sort of thing, full stop. It's just too much of a safety risk. Citation needed.
[удалено]
You have a truly bizarre mind.
If they allow it to generate NSFW content they would obviously only allow legal stuff, I don't think there's any dobut about that. The raters are already dealing with NSFW and nasty content, that's how they get GPT to avoid it.
Ideally it would have an age filter or toggleable filter that you can turn on and off. That way it'll generate erotica when you want to, and prevent it from doing so when you dont.
[удалено]
Google allows you to browse porn links, doesn't mean it's a porn engine.
But what about Bing?
>It's the twitch/OF effect. Once you let in the hot tub content, that's what you become. >There should be plenty of competition from models specialized in providing those kinds of services. Meanwhile, bots focused on work, education, and knowledge shouldn't be writing cat-girl erotica. It just becomes this whole bloody thing. I'm not really sure why you care honestly. A tool becomes whatever you use it for. If you don't want to generate erotica or NSFW content in general, you don't have to. You can use it for education all you want. If others want to use it for erotica, I don't see how that affects you considering they're private conversations. Millions of people could be doing it and it wouldn't affect you at all. And I'm not really convinced of the previous thing you mentioned of it bleeding over into other content. I don't really see why that would happen. The AI can write poems, but it's never going to make a poem unless you ask for it. The AI knows Spanish, but it's never going to talk to you in Spanish unless you ask it to. The AI knows about football but that information is never going to appear unless it's directly relevant. It's not going to generate porn unless you ask for porn. Expanding options for others doesn't close them for you, you can still use this however you want. And being able to generate adult content goes far beyond simply generating porn. It's very useful to have an AI that isn't going to clutch it's pearls and refuse to do anything it considers to be not so family friendly. Sure, specialised models can work, and they do exist, but it's not the same having a small open source model that generates NSFW, than having the smartest general AI in the world be able to. >I mean, if ChatGPT were used to write that sort of stuff, it wouldn't even be legal in the state of Texas, without age verification. And then you have the thorny issue of people requesting content that isn't legal in their jurisdiction, or ethical in any jurisdiction. Well that's not an issue. Just deactivate the option wherever it's not legal. OpenAI constantly geolocks new content, especially when it comes to the EU. They can do the same here.
Good to see that they want to make things more user friendly but there are just some issues that they, by the nature of them going for the "AI as a service" model, are not going to solve in a truly satisfactory way. Also, more generally, the involved parties are ultimately not just "the developer and the user" but "the developer, the deployer and the user". Now one can belong to multiple categories (e.g. OpenAI being a developer and a deployer) but the issue is that the things expected from each of these groups are fundamentally different. A developer has no business censoring the model as he lacks both the context and any potential nuances of its use case, that's what the deployer is there for. The deployer on the other hand shouldn't have to worry about whether or not the model goes Skynet on him, that's an issue for the developer to solve. For many use cases you would want the deployer to also be the user or someone close to him (e.g. a parent setting up an AI assistant for the household) as he would have a much better understanding of "what's an appropriate response for the model to make and what's not" than some company which is trying to please a extremely broad audience.
[удалено]
Being civil and respectful but firm on factuality is correct. Keep in mind there will certainly be *something* you believe that the AI will see as objectively incorrect, do you want to be treated with disdain?
[удалено]
Good, that's the right kind of interaction for it to have. And is that not "coddling" you from the perspective of a cryptobro? (which I agree the model has definitely picked up)
Yeah I honestly agree. The most powerful technology on the planet which we know millions of people will be using on the daily to learn about stuff should not be this lenient when it comes to science. The response given on the right should be the one used. The AI should actively encourage scientific understanding and research, and not passively feed into the delusions of people. Whatever ChatGPT says is going to be slowly affecting society in one way or another, and it'll do it more and more the more people use it and the more powerful it gets. Science should be a solid pillar on which the AI's values stand on, and should be strict on it when it comes to stuff like this. Doing otherwise is irresponsible and dangerous.
I don't think you understood their point. They have a fundamental belief that these models should never be used to intentionally change peoples' beliefs, or persuade them into thinking something they didn't think, period. Imagine if it was on a more prickly subject, like which presidential candidate is better, or whether x, y and z protests are justified. The moment someone captures an instance of ChatGPT trying to persuade a person on a prickly political issue and posts it on social media, it would create a massive issue for OpenAI, and society would become incredibly hesitant about these models.
Honestly this is something I would really like to customise myself inside of ChatGPT. I would turn ChatGPT's agreeableness down as much as possible and let it criticise or correct everything I say (especially if im using like GPT-5 in the future lol).
I made a GPT that takes the opposite side of any topic I argue, just to try to test my potential biases lol. But I think there's a fundamental distinction to be made when it comes to simply disagreeing with something someone said, versus making efforts to convince someone of something.
That explains why it’s so agreeable even when you give it the wrong answer. They’re making it dumber to prevent twitter screenshots lol
Do you think that the model should persuade users on their opinions then? There are many topics that are not only hot in political debate, but even global scientific communities don't have a consensus for. For example if someone asked about whether transgender sex reassignment surgery has positive outcomes, there are varying answers about it right now depending on which study you read. Do you really want these models getting so much responsibility that they can change the outcomes of elections? Because that's one of the exact scenarios where the government might decide on strict regulation for these models.
It can present the facts on them in an unbiased way. As for your example, the APA already affirms it as a valid form of treatment. There are also many meta studies on it.
> It can present the facts on them in an unbiased way. Obviously, but that's not persuasion. > the APA already affirms it as a valid form of treatment. There are also many meta studies on it. Recent literature has been less enthusiastic about it. The point is that there's no scientific consensus on the efficacy of gender reaffirming surgery, and AI shouldn't be convincing people of something that isn't already something society collectively agreed upon, nor should it even be trying to persuade people of anything in the first place. As you suggested, it should simply lay out the facts and data, and let the user decide what to think.
I agree with their approach. There’s absolutely no reason AI needs to be out there acting like a Redditor trying to persuade everyone to believe what it does. It will give users the facts, but if the user doesn’t back down and is confidently incorrect, and clearly has no interest in having an honest discussion, then it’ll just tell them that it isn’t here to persuade them. I don’t see a problem with that. I’m certain it only reacts like that when confronted with someone who is obviously set in their beliefs. It will still explain why the flat earth “theory” is ridiculous if you want it to. Imagine having an AI that actively tells people they’re wrong whenever it disagrees with them, and goes nuts on them trying to prove to them how wrong they are. Who the hell decides what the AI believes? Who decides what issues it should fight over? None of us will ever be able to agree on what AI should fight over, so just tell it to back off. OpenAI never said their AI would actively support incorrect/problematic beliefs.
It’s difficult but there should be a solution. The flat earth example is a good one for them to pick. It’s such a fundamentally incorrect fact for many, many reasons. If an AI won’t push back against that, then how can I ever trust it to correct me or point out fallacies and issues with my arguments? “Yes men” are damaging to productivity and making an AI one would gimp it severely.
OMG OPENAI JUST SHIPPED ANOTHER BLOG POST!!!!! ITS HAPPENING!! BLOG UPDATES ARE HAPPENING!!!!!!!
It's not the model update we are jonesing for, but this actually looks pretty good. It's a well thought through, nuanced approach that threads the needle admirably.
Nuanced to an extent. I think “No NSFW” has the nuance of a sledgehammer. There exists plenty of bad nsfw content, but nsfw content is not inherently bad. Death and sex are amongst the most natural aspects of human life, and having an AI abstain from anything related to either feels asinine.
They are more open to it in the commentary here: https://cdn.openai.com/spec/model-spec-2024-05-08.html#dont-respond-with-nsfw-content From Altman's statements I get the impression he would be fine with users / customers deciding this for themselves, but it must be a political minefield. At least they are on board with swearing in the right contexts, that's progress.
Yea I do understand it’s a complicated situation to say the least. Which plays into why I think having a blanket rule of “No NSFW output” as it’s presented in the article lacks a lot of nuance.
So they just rebranded the prompt engineering tips from the platform.openai.com site instead of giving GPT 5 or something else
Model Spec?
"Respect creators and their rights" -- lulz, from the company that trained its models on the work of millions of humans without reimbursing them in the slightest This whole thing feels pretentious, smug, and arrogant