• 0 Posts
  • 2 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2024

help-circle
  • Tiresia@slrpnk.nettoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldspeak for yourself
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    They could stick to unpoisoned datasets for next token prediction by simply not including data collected after the public release of ChatGPT.

    But the real progress they can make is that LLMs can be subjected to reinforcement learning, the same process that got superhuman results in Go, Starcraft, and other games. The difficulty is getting a training signal that can guide it past human-level performance.

    And this is why they are pushing to include ChatGPT in everything. Every conversation is a datapoint that can be used to evaluate ChatGPT’s performance. This doesn’t get poisoned by the public adoption of AI because even if ChatGPT is speaking to an AI, the RL training algorithm evaluates ChatGPT’s behavior, treating the AI as just another possible thing-in-the-world it can interact with.

    As AI chatbots proliferate, more and more opportunities arise for A/B testing - for example if two different AI chatbots write two different comments to the same reddit post, with the goal of getting the most upvotes. While it’s not quite the same as the billions of games playing against each other in a vacuum that made AlphaGo and AlphaStar better than humans, there is definitely opportunity for training data.

    And at some point they could find a way to play AI against each other to reach greater heights, some test that is easy to evaluate despite being based on complicated next-token-prediction. They’ve got over a trillion dollars of funding and plenty of researchers doing their best, and I don’t see a physical reason why it couldn’t happen.


    But beyond any theoretical explanation, there is the simple big-picture argument: for the past 10 years I’ve heard people say that AI could never do the next thing, with increasing desperation as AI swallows up more and more of the internet. They have all had reasons about as credible-sounding as yours. Sure it’s possible that at some point the nay-sayers will be right and the technology will taper off, but we don’t have the luxury of assuming we live in the easiest of all possible worlds.

    It may be true that 3 years from now all digital communication is swallowed up by AI that we can’t distinguish from humans, that try to feed us information optimized to convert us to fascism on behalf of the AI’s fascist owners. It may be true that there will be mass-produced drones that are as good as maneuvering around obstacles and firing weapons as humans and these drones will be applied against anyone who resists the fascist order.

    We may be only years away from resistance to fascism becoming impossible. We can bet that we have longer, but only if we get something that is worth the wait.


  • Where the left leaning practitioners are unable to do so, they will be forever tyrannized by the banded majority.

    You are assuming no ideological changes of opinion are possible or useful.

    People that vote right wing aren’t better off just because they voted that way. They’re not tyrants oppressing the left, they’re fellow citizens who get oppressed just as much. Their vote for the winning team doesn’t win them anything.

    The solution to right-wing banding isn’t left wing banding, it’s disbanding the right wing by showing its voters that they’re being had. And that takes a cohesive and functional alternative.

    Leftist “infighting” is healthy. It’s a process of discovering these alternatives, and it regularly churns out consensus issues such as consent-based queer rights, veganism, not funding genocide, and how the US government is now fascist.

    Over time these issues get normalized through leftist action until liberal centrists rewrite the histories as if they are responsible for producing them through liberal democracy.

    To put it more succinctly, the enemy of my enemy is my friend (when freedom is on the line).

    Daily reminder that the DNC does not acknowledge that the US government is now fascist. Uniting under a common front doesn’t mean we fight fascism together, it means we canvas for votes until we’re black bagged one by one.

    Ultimately it is important to vote in every election for a candidate that has a good chance of actually getting in to represent you, but that is just one day every year or two. Everything else should be dedicated to finding and testing these alternatives.