[HN Gopher] Summarize Any Article as a Dialog Between Two People...
___________________________________________________________________
Summarize Any Article as a Dialog Between Two People with Bing Chat
Author : bepero
Score : 119 points
Date : 2023-05-17 11:45 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.aidemos.info)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.aidemos.info)
| jimmySixDOF wrote:
| Kind of more interesting in the other direction summarizing
| conversations into an article sort of like what these folks put
| together:
|
| Show HN: The HN Recap - AI generated daily HN podcast | Hacker
| News https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35831177
| altacc wrote:
| Same here. Interviews hide interesting information within a lot
| of noise and I'd much rather have a concise and information
| dense summary.
| nwoli wrote:
| I can only image the SEO hacks and scams once openai releases
| their AGI api
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| 15 years ago, maybe. But those hacks stopped working ages ago.
| I don't see how this could affect it, to be honest.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > browse https://electrek.co/2023/05/15/renewables-us-utility-
| scale-g... and make a summary
|
| I've been waiting intently for ChatGPT to have this
| functionality. I think there's a waiting list? Do we have any ETA
| on when this functionality will be possible?
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| I tried on ChatGPT and with this prompt and it worked quite
| well:
|
| " _Please,
| browsehttps://padiracinnovation.org/News/2023/05/misdiagnosis-
| in-a... and make a summary in the form of a dialog between two
| people. Leave an empty row after each dialog. Bolden the
| important parts of the text. Before the dialog start with 2 or
| 3 sentence summary._ "
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| Does ChatGPT have access to the internet?
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| That surprised me also because today I asked it to make a
| summary of an article and it refused, saying it has no
| access to internet:
|
| Me: " _Dear ChatGPT, please could you summarize this
| scientific
| article:https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/4/1131_ "
|
| ChatGPT: " _I apologize, but as an AI text-based model, I
| am unable to browse the internet or access specific
| webpages like the one you provided. However, if you can
| provide me with the text of the article or a specific
| section you would like me to summarize, I would be happy to
| help you with that._ "
|
| Yet this time it accessed Internet.
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| Hum, I regenerated this prompt and this time it told it
| accessed Internet, but it was hallucinating:
|
| Me: " _Dear ChatGPT, please could you summarize this
| scientific
| article:https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/4/1131_ "
|
| ChatGPT: " _Certainly! The article titled "Pregnancy
| Outcome in Women with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and
| Meta-Analysis" published in the International Journal of
| Environmental Research and Public Health aimed to provide
| a comprehensive analysis of the effects of COVID-19
| infection on pregnant women and their outcomes. etc,
| etc.._"
|
| The article is : " _RAGE Inhibitors in Neurodegenerative
| Diseases by V. Prakash Reddy_ "
| feintruled wrote:
| If you get access to the plugins, there's one called Linkreader
| that will do this.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| Go to Settings -> Beta Features toggle on 'Web browsing'.
|
| Then when you start a chat, choose GPT-4 with Web Browsing.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| And what would be the point of that?
| rickcarlino wrote:
| I have been trying similar experiments using the OpenAI API with
| decent results. These sorts of summarization tools are useful for
| foreign language learners because the Internet is full of
| interesting news articles that engage the reader but they have
| the downside of being written in a very formal tone which is not
| useful for language learners who wish to practice conversation
| skills. Being able to transform interesting but formal content
| into a conversation that can be fed to an AI text to speech
| engine seems very promising for learning foreign language
| conversation skills.
| eunos wrote:
| Tried it a few times, got this
|
| """ I'm sorry, but I am not able to browse specific websites or
| create summaries in the form of a dialog. However, I can provide
| you with general information about the topic you mentioned if you
| would like.
|
| """
| bepero wrote:
| Use creative mode.
| marwis wrote:
| Now if we could only generate a comic strip to go with it
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Comic_Chat
| no4120k1 wrote:
| [dead]
| gtirloni wrote:
| "I apologize but I am not able to browse websites" is what I get
| from Bing Chat. Any clues?
|
| EDIT: It seesm that "More Creative" mode has external access. I
| saw it mentioned here but I don't know how I would have figured
| this out from the information in the website.
| walthamstow wrote:
| Rate limit exceeded. Hug of death?
| SamEdosa wrote:
| The article mentions a cool hack to make Edge browsers TTS work
| with your own custom text. I also made a small extension that
| automatically reads out prompt answers for Bing chat like this.
| https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/addons/detail/your-perso...
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| Based on my previous attempts with that other well noted LLM, I
| don't think these models are at all good at managing "theory of
| mind". They seem to not keep track very well of which parties are
| privy to which information, which parties are supposed to be
| pursuing certain conversational objectives, and generally which
| direction information is supposed to be flowing. It often trips
| over itself at the level of 2 parties, and certainly trip over
| itself at the level of 3 parties. Additionally, I have not once
| seen it be able to do a form of recursive nesting wherein one of
| the two parties in a dialog begin to discuss verbatim a dialog
| between two additional people. I suspect these problems are
| deeply seated and intrinsic to the model, and will not be
| rectified under the "just train it more bro" refrain of AI
| evangelicals.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| In my very first interaction with Bing's bot, I was asking some
| details about PC components, and e.g. it was common for bing to
| give back answers containing phrases like "as we tested in our
| previous article" (verbatim, even using the plural 1st person).
| It is obvious it is just parroting from the websites it
| scraped. PC hardware means benchmark results which means
| benchmark websites/blogs which means the "as we tested in our
| previous article" phrase is common so it will just put it there
| in the answer even if makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
|
| I really don't understand why people ascribe emergent behaviors
| to these systems such as "theory of mind". It's just
| randomness. I'm presuming there's just a lot of psycological
| pareidolia going around.
|
| It also got a significant chunk of the answers wrong, creative
| mode or not. Often, the Bing search it appeared to do actually
| showed the correct answer right in the snippet of the first
| result, yet it was not able to scrape that. More rarely but
| annoyingly frequently it would just search for the wrong thing
| (e.g. searched for "X vs Y" when it just didn't make sense
| since they were two layers of the same technology).
| bitwize wrote:
| > PC hardware means benchmark results which means benchmark
| websites/blogs which means the "as we tested in our previous
| article" phrase is common so it will just put it there in the
| answer even if makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
|
| "Don't forget to like and subscribe!" -- A Hackernews' 3-yo
| daughter, saying goodbye
| akio wrote:
| > I really don't understand why people ascribe emergent
| behaviors to these systems such as "theory of mind". It's
| just randomness. I'm presuming there's just a lot of
| psycological pareidolia going around.
|
| Ah yes, "just randomness":
|
| ----
|
| From the above text, generate these variations:
|
| 1) For each word in the text count the number of letters in
| the word and append the count to the word in parenthesis.
|
| 2) Write each word backwards.
|
| 3) Write a similarly structured text that argues the opposite
| of the original text.
|
| ----
|
| 1) I (1) really (5) don't (4) understand (10) why (3) people
| (6) ascribe (7) emergent (8) behaviors (9) to (2) these (5)
| systems (7) such (4) as (2) "theory (6) of (2) mind" (4).
| It's (4) just (4) randomness (10). I'm (3) presuming (9)
| there's (6) just (4) a (1) lot (3) of (2) psychological (12)
| pareidolia (10) going (5) around (6).
|
| 2) I yllaer t'nod dnatsrednu yhw elpoep ebircsa tnegrime
| sroivaheb ot eseht smetsys hcus sa ".dnim fo yroeht" s'tI
| tsuj ssenmodnar m'I gnimuserp s'ereht tsuj a tol fo
| lacigolohcysp ailodierap gniodnuora
|
| 3) I absolutely comprehend how people can accurately identify
| emergent behaviors in these systems like "theory of mind".
| It's far from random. I'm convinced that these are genuine
| insights being recognized.
| re wrote:
| Did you notice that it made multiple errors for the first
| two variations? [Edit:] What's particularly interesting to
| me is the inconsistent counting of apostrophes for #1, and
| the handling of "theory of mind" for #2 -- though there are
| simpler errors besides these.
| daveguy wrote:
| Not to mention a third one isn't any sort of argument,
| just a statement of the opposite belief.
| [deleted]
| soulofmischief wrote:
| It has to do with the way text is tokenized into discrete
| groups and not individual characters. One way to try
| overcoming this problem is to ask the model to break each
| word into individual spaced characters as an intermediary
| step.
| flangola7 wrote:
| There's a research paper floating around...
| jjeaff wrote:
| So, I certainly wouldn't ascribe any higher level thinking to
| these LLMs. But they do seem to have more capability than
| just regurgitating information. They have some logical
| thinking skills that I assume are not really emergent, but
| built into the system. For example, I was working on a
| configuration file for a somewhat new and esoteric firmware,
| so there isn't much info online about it. But I asked if a
| specific parameter could include more than one value and bing
| chat answered that it's assumption was no because it could
| find no mention anywhere of being able to use more than one
| value for that parameter. As far as I can tell, no one has
| answered a similar question anywhere online that it could
| have been regurgitating, so it seems to have deduced it.
| andsoitis wrote:
| I would be careful to draw that conclusion. Not all
| information LLMs are trained on is accessible to the wide
| public (e.g. ChatGPT has training data from closed
| sources).
|
| Regardless, If you share the details of your prompt, I'd be
| interested to see whether my Google-fu turns up
| information.
| nomel wrote:
| Are you suggesting that LLM can't produce novel output?
| akio wrote:
| GPT-4:
|
| ----
|
| Jane: John, I can't believe you're just going to leave me here
| in the middle of nowhere! This is so typical of you!
|
| John: Typical of me? Jane, this is exactly what you signed up
| for! Adventure, remember? It's not my fault that you're
| suddenly having second thoughts.
|
| Jane: Second thoughts? This isn't about having second thoughts,
| John! This is about you always charging ahead without
| considering the consequences or how others might feel!
|
| John: Oh, so now I'm inconsiderate? I recall someone saying
| they wanted to live on the edge, break away from the routine.
| Wasn't that you, Jane?
|
| Jane: Yes, I said that, but it doesn't mean you get to make all
| the decisions on your own, John! Adventure is about teamwork,
| not you dragging me behind like some sort of sidekick!
|
| John: Sidekick? No, Jane. I thought of us as partners. But you
| need to step up, take some risks. That's what being a partner
| is all about. If you can't handle that, maybe this isn't for
| you after all.
|
| ----
|
| Now write a dialog between Alice and Bob discussing the dialog
| between Jane and John.
|
| ----
|
| Alice: Bob, I feel like Jane was being a bit unfair to John. He
| was merely trying to live up to the adventurous spirit they
| both agreed on. He was pushing their boundaries, not just his
| own.
|
| Bob: I see your point, Alice, but I think Jane had a valid
| argument. While she did agree to an adventure, John should have
| been more considerate. He was making decisions without
| considering Jane's comfort and safety.
|
| Alice: I understand that, Bob, but isn't that the essence of
| adventure? Uncertainty, unexpected decisions, and stepping out
| of the comfort zone? John was trying to help Jane embrace that
| spirit.
|
| Bob: Alice, while I agree adventure involves some level of
| uncertainty, it doesn't mean one should disregard their
| partner's feelings. John could have communicated better,
| ensuring Jane was on board with his decisions.
|
| Alice: You're right about communication, Bob, but I still
| believe John's intentions weren't malicious. They were just
| misaligned. He thought he was encouraging her, while she felt
| he was being inconsiderate.
|
| Bob: Well, Alice, intentions don't always justify actions.
| Maybe John wasn't being malicious, but he was certainly being
| insensitive. Jane's feelings of being left behind are valid,
| regardless of John's intentions.
| akio wrote:
| Now write a dialog between Mary and David discussing the
| dialog between Alice and Bob.
|
| ----
|
| Mary: David, after listening to Alice and Bob's conversation,
| it seems to me that Alice is empathizing with John's
| intentions, while Bob is more focused on Jane's feelings.
|
| David: I see what you mean, Mary. But don't you think Bob was
| right to emphasize the importance of understanding Jane's
| perspective? John's actions had a clear impact on her.
|
| Mary: True, David, but Alice also made a valid point.
| Adventure often involves stepping out of one's comfort zone,
| and John was just trying to bring that element into their
| journey.
|
| David: I agree that Alice made a good point, Mary, but it's
| also essential to remember that adventure doesn't have to
| mean neglecting your partner's feelings. Bob was right to
| highlight that.
|
| Mary: Indeed, David, both Alice and Bob have valid
| perspectives. It seems to boil down to striking a balance
| between pushing one's boundaries and respecting the feelings
| of others.
|
| David: Absolutely, Mary. The balance between seeking
| adventure and maintaining empathy seems to be the key
| takeaway from both their conversations.
| [deleted]
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| Well, I have to give credit where its due. It certainly
| does a lot better on this test than the first time I tried
| it. I'm curious to see how it does as the prompts of this
| form get more adversarial and difficult. I can think of a
| few different ways.
|
| 1. The most obvious: keep going deeper. How many layers
| until it breaks down.
|
| 2. The hidden information variant: Can it do a layer where
| only Sharon has read the previous dialogs, and she has to
| explain what she read to Doug, and Doug often asks
| questions to elaborate on things he doesn't understand?
|
| 3. The same characters at multiple layers: Can it make a
| dialog about Jane and John at a later point in time
| discussing their own earlier dialog? In other words, can it
| reliably make the distinction between "you" (the object of
| discussion) and "you" (the the person you're discussing
| with) for any value of "you"?
|
| 4. The tripartite state: Can it simulate dialog with 3
| people? 4 people? how many until it breaks?
|
| 5. The infinite meta layer: What happens when you ask it to
| simulate a dialog between itself and yourself, and as part
| of that dialog you give it this prompt asking it to
| simulate this same conversation, causing this conversation
| to appear as a dialog within itself?
|
| Lastly just to remark, I notice that Mary and David are
| nearly making the same arguments about Alice and Bob as
| Alice and Bob were making about John and Jane. The formula
| for it seems to be to introduce to new characters one layer
| up, have them each pick a side, then fill in roughly the
| same arguments again. Maybe this pattern is just spurious,
| but I'm deeply curious to find out if we have fooled
| ourselves already with just your example. Do further
| iterations of "two new characters describe two previous
| characters" result in the same loop over and over, or will
| it sometimes generate something novel? I'm deeply curious
| and don't have GPT4 for myself yet.
| jxy wrote:
| This seems to be a setup of an extremely interesting
| experiment. We could get a bunch of different language
| models and actual humans together and prompt them to
| write under these different scenarios.
| akio wrote:
| > The formula for it seems to be to introduce to new
| characters one layer up, have them each pick a side, then
| fill in roughly the same arguments again. Maybe this
| pattern is just spurious, but I'm deeply curious to find
| out if we have fooled ourselves already with just your
| example.
|
| The instructions I gave it were very bare, and it didn't
| intuit a need to deviate from what it saw. But what it
| does by default is not the same as what it can do:
|
| ----
|
| Now write a dialog between Mary and David discussing the
| dialog between Alice and Bob. Mary and David should
| hypothesize about why Alice and Bob took the sides that
| they did. There's no need for Mary and David to name each
| other every time they speak. Mary and David should have a
| very good understanding of what Alice and Bob said. Mary
| and David are not overly polite or civil, should not
| rehash the same arguments Alice and Bob made, and are
| able to snipe at Alice and Bob if they like.
|
| ----
|
| Mary: So, Alice clearly seems to be on Team Adventure
| here. I bet she's the kind who loves skydiving and bungee
| jumping. Probably just trying to justify her own wild
| side through John's actions.
|
| David: Ha! You might be right. And Bob is definitely the
| voice of reason, probably a careful planner who can't
| stand the thought of making decisions on the fly. It's
| like he's projecting himself onto Jane.
|
| Mary: It's funny how they both missed the point that Jane
| and John's adventure could have been thrilling and safe
| at the same time. They got so caught up in taking sides
| that they didn't even consider a middle ground.
|
| David: Absolutely. And did you notice how Alice kept
| trying to defend John's intentions? Like, sure,
| intentions matter, but that doesn't mean you can just
| bulldoze over someone's feelings. Classic excuse-maker.
|
| Mary: Yeah, it's like she's trying to convince herself as
| much as Bob. She's probably made similar mistakes and
| doesn't want to admit it. And Bob, Mr. Sensitivity, is so
| focused on feelings that he overlooks the possibility of
| compromise.
|
| David: Right! They both ended up stuck in their own
| perspectives. It's too bad they couldn't see that being
| adventurous doesn't have to mean being inconsiderate, and
| being considerate doesn't mean you can't have a little
| fun.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| the fact this came from a "stochastic parrot" still blows
| my mind.
| akio wrote:
| That is a clue that GPT-4 is not a stochastic parrot and
| does in fact possess an understanding of language and a
| model of the world.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| How would we treat a parrot with GPT4s capability? I
| don't think it's a great metaphor because it ignores
| emergent behavior. Whatever the technical details are,
| GPT4 can hold a fairly satisfying conversation about
| almost any topic. If a parrot was 1000x better, it
| wouldn't be a "parrot".
| shagie wrote:
| This gets into part of philosophy and linguistics that I
| wish I took more of in college.
|
| Consider the question "does language enable higher
| thought?" Was Koko able to think things that other
| gorillas were not able to? Or how about Bunny the dog (
| https://www.youtube.com/@whataboutbunny ) or Billie the
| cat ( https://www.youtube.com/@BilliSpeaks )?
|
| This is an "I believe" and acknowledge that I don't have
| the proper argument to back it up...
|
| I believe that language and thought as we know it are
| intertwined. It is possible to communicate without
| language but _thinking_ (and that 's a poorly defined
| word) requires a language to think in. Something that is
| able to use language well is able to think - and that
| gets to a LLM can thing (it just it does it in a way that
| is foreign to the expectations of a human mind).
|
| --
|
| Regarding LLMs and parrots within science fiction...
|
| http://klingon.wiki/En/CapableOfLanguage
|
| > Beings capable of language (only one time referred to
| as "capable of speech" in TKD on p. 25) are those beings
| which are able to speak a language(1). Examples are
| Klingons, Humans, Romulans, etc. This does also include
| babies, because even if they do not speak, they are
| capable of using language(2). This distinction is
| important in the use of possessive suffixes, plural
| suffixes and the choice of pronouns.
|
| > _not capable of language_
|
| > Not considered as capable of language are:
|
| > Parrots, as they only imitate sound, they do not speak.
| (3)
|
| > Robots and computers, they are not living beings. (4)
| (5)
| onetokeoverthe wrote:
| [dead]
| basch wrote:
| LLMs will become components of larger systems.
|
| They are an example of a situation where putting excess effort
| into a problem returns a plausible result, but from an
| efficiency and accuracy standpoint, parts of what they are
| accomplishing are better solved by simpler systems.
|
| As they act as an interpreter, they should be able to identify
| when to hand off tasks to subroutines, and then reincorporate
| the result.
|
| Just because LLMs can successfully output what they are doing,
| doesn't mean they are the best tool for the job. They are sort
| of like a CPU, good at generalist everything tasks, better when
| augmented with coprocessors.
| bgirard wrote:
| > and will not be rectified under the "just train it more bro"
| refrain of AI evangelicals.
|
| You made a good point up until then but this kind of remark
| incredibly condescending and dismissive of other people's
| viewpoint. It's also quite possible that you're both right.
| That we'll need more training and new architecture
| breakthroughs. You could have left it at that you didn't think
| it would be solved by more training.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| I suppose it was not entirely clear that the viewpoint I'm
| mocking with "just train it more bro" is the extreme end of
| evangelists. The people who seem to believe LLM's are proof
| that we have fundamentally cracked the principle of cognition
| in the form of the neural network, and that there is nothing
| more to figure out other than just training it more, bro.
| We've all met a trainitmore bro. They are about as tedious as
| the statistical parrot parrots. Both of these extreme
| positions deserve some amount of dismissive mocking imo.
| feintruled wrote:
| Nice observation, will help to formulate our Voight-Kampff
| tests. Might well get some false positives on neurodivergent
| humans though.
| frakt0x90 wrote:
| No opinion on the model or product itself, but I remember reading
| a very early math or physics book (think like Euclid's elements
| or Newton's Principia from Hawking's Anthologies) and the proofs
| were laid out as a dialog between 2 people being critical of each
| others arguments. I always thought that was awesome. The point of
| a proof is to convince its reader, and before a lot of formality
| was created, they were literally laid out as a dialog where one
| person tried to convince the other.
|
| I found it an effective and engaging mechanism and use it in my
| own head all the time.
| aeadio wrote:
| This method dates back to Socrates
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_dialogue
| jxy wrote:
| It should be emphasized that Bing never processes the link in
| real time. It really just access some Microsoft database when you
| give it a link. Sometimes it's frustrating to realize that Bing
| hallucinated the whole article based on the URL instead of the
| actual content.
| mcbuilder wrote:
| It's so easy to fall for it as well, even as someone who has
| been using LLMs since they came out. Just the other day, I was
| using ChatGPT on my phone, when I found myself asking whether
| it was GPT-3.5 or GPT-4. Didn't realize I was being suckered
| until I reran the prompt. As a human, you'd expect another
| person to know basic facts about themselves, so it's new kind
| of "AI Authority Fallacy" which is a result of these models
| being highly "intelligent" as well as incredible bullshitters.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Yeah, it's surprising that OpenAI don't put what model it is
| in the system prompt. I guess the cost would add up, unless
| they can reuse the kv cache from the system prompt?
| cheeseblubber wrote:
| We actually experimented with this at Linen.dev and it worked
| with decent results: https://slack-
| chats.kotlinlang.org/t/457766/what-would-be-th...
|
| Sometimes it would still hallucinate information though.
| stndef wrote:
| To be fair, I hallucinate information as well so I can't
| completely knock it!
| carrolldunham wrote:
| Spam. Hijacking seo keyword CHaTgPt (which is just added to the
| text despite not being used in the article) to link his crappy
| tool
| chrjxnandns wrote:
| [dead]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-17 23:01 UTC)