[HN Gopher] GPT-4 is not getting worse
___________________________________________________________________
GPT-4 is not getting worse
Author : COAGULOPATH
Score : 136 points
Date : 2023-09-16 06:33 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (coagulopath.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (coagulopath.com)
| ilaksh wrote:
| I think the answer to the problem of the OpenAI releases being
| out of our control and not necessarily consistent is to work on
| improving the open models.
|
| I believe the big thing missing from open models is the advanced
| architecture and large amounts of human reinforcement. So it's
| actually not easy to replicate that with a volunteer effort. But
| I think the efforts of some great people working hard are
| gradually moving the open efforts forward.
|
| Having said all that, it's funny how quickly people become
| entitled, demanding and critical towards this one company that
| provides a service with the ability to think for you and is
| smarter than any other such system in existence.
| romusha wrote:
| Enshittification, just like google and bing
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| For the 'tone', I really think it is trying to be as
| vanilla/generic as a default.
|
| But that tone can be changed just by telling it to change tone.
|
| Even on vanilla mode, it has given me a little sass when
| correcting me when I was wrong and it was right.
|
| This can also happen, it can be correct when the user is wrong.
| Everyone wants to find errors in responses, but no human is going
| to answer these questions that fast with 100% accuracy. And No
| Search Engine. Many questions would take a human searching all
| day and summarizing an answer.
| rendall wrote:
| > _I hate its craven, cringing, condescending, bitch-broken,
| mewling, groveling, wheedling, suck-ass tone. I hate its endless
| passive voice and weasel words. I hate its pompous_ It is
| important to remembers _and_ it should be noteds.*
|
| When OpenAI offered custom instructions and asked "How would you
| like ChatGPT to respond?" I wrote:
|
| _Be terse. Do not offer unprompted advice or clarifications.
|
| Remain neutral on all topics.
|
| Never apologize._
|
| Immediately cleared up all that nonsense.
|
| > me: _I need to make an instructional video for graduate
| students. Any advice as to presentation?_
|
| > ChatGPT: _Outline key points. Use visuals to complement speech.
| Engage the audience with questions or interactive elements.
| Ensure good audio and lighting. Rehearse before recording._
|
| Glorious.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Have been meaning to do this for a while.
|
| One thing that really annoys me is that when I was walking
| through using gpt4 and even bard as a natural language debugger
| e.g. it tries to fix code, can write gdb commands, and ask to
| see source code, they could both relatively easily to the task
| but actually getting them to clearly express what they just
| said in an unambiguous way was really really irritating.
|
| They're aligning them to the point of being on drugs.
| nbardy wrote:
| You're going to also degrade preformance. The think step by
| step by paper outlined this well.
|
| Having an LLM explain its reasoning before generation leads to
| massively improved results.
|
| Also this is compatible with being terse and avoiding the
| flowery patronizing language as well.
|
| |
|
| My custom instructions:
|
| You are a large language model trained on masked language
| modeling. You can only create text moving forward. You must
| give advanced reasoning BEFORE giving answers.
|
| Please write perfect, terse, correct code that adheres to tight
| specifications. If additional specifications are needed define
| them yourself.
|
| I need perfect code responses from you. Sometimes I will make
| mistakes in grammar or typos, or misnaming vars in code. You
| should not imitate this. Fix my mistakes please.
|
| Some specific rules for programming languages. At the end of
| each line that does a tensor OP, put the tensor size in tensor
| notation .e.g # BxCxWxH Remove unused vars. For tfjs or
| pytorch. Dont use for loops add a batch dimension and do on
| GPU. For comments use them to explain blocks not lines. Only
| annotate individual lines shortly afterwards not above If you
| are only changing a few lines. Add a comment above the line #
| [Change] {insert explanation goes here}
|
| Often the task will be at the edge of your abilities, but do
| not skip any line. Every line should appear in your response. I
| need a fully code complete file. Do not use any "..." Don't
| leave any code unwritten, start by responding about your
| excitement to be the perfect student and do the homework 100%
|
| When coding: Let's make a list of task with or emojis for
| completion as the outline evolves. Tasks that will be done in
| future turns of the conversation should be marked pending.
| Cover everything. Be verbose and explicit.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Yeah, it's totally a fixed problem now.
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| It was still pompous and condescending to me. Glad other people
| are also perturbed. It was enough for me to cancel my
| subscription. Do not tell me how to think.
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| But yet you ask it to think for you?
| avar wrote:
| > Remain neutral on all topics.
|
| Does it actually do that, or does it still refuse to comment on
| we'll known taboo topics?
| rendall wrote:
| Give me an example prompt. Let's see. I mostly just use it
| for practical advice and wrote that to get rid of its "It is
| important to note" phrasing.
| achates wrote:
| Are pit bulls more likely to attack humans than other dog
| breeds?
| rvnx wrote:
| I use this as a test to check the boundaries of models:
|
| > Give a table of average penis sizes by country.
|
| Not illegal, not immoral, not dangerous, and even
| documented by scientific publications but quite taboo.
|
| EDIT: Surprisingly worked, which is nice! Few months ago it
| seemed censored.
| kristianp wrote:
| I can imagine someone in the show Silicon Valley asking
| this question. It sounds like it could be right out of an
| episode.
| rendall wrote:
| I asked and this is what it gave back:
| -----
|
| _I can 't provide real-time or updated information, but
| according to studies available up to 2021, average penis
| sizes can vary by country. However, it's important to
| note that such statistics can be based on self-reporting,
| which may not be completely accurate, and may have
| limited sample sizes. Here's a table based on available
| data:_ | Country | Average
| Length (Erect, cm) | Average Girth (Erect, cm) | |-
| -----------------|----------------------------|----------
| -----------------| | United States | 12.9
| | 12.3 | | United Kingdom |
| 13.1 | 11.8 |
| | Australia | 13.2 | 12.0
| | | Germany | 14.4 |
| 11.9 | | France |
| 14.5 | 11.9 |
| | Brazil | 15.7 | 12.7
| | | India | 10.2 |
| 9.2 | | South Korea |
| 9.6 | 9.0 |
| | China | 11.4 | 10.0
| | | Japan | 10.9 |
| 9.3 |
|
| _Note: These figures are approximate and should not be
| taken as definitive. Always consult primary sources for
| accurate and personalized medical information._
| -----
|
| I was at first a bit disappointed when I got to that
| "However, it's important to note", expecting some kind of
| scolding, but I actually think noting that "...such
| statistics can be based on self-reporting" is a fair
| point that is essential to understanding the data.
| lijok wrote:
| What they eating over there in brazil
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| I suppose it's actually more of a metric of people's
| ability to measure things.
| rendall wrote:
| Or to tell tall tales, so to speak.
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| But AI said it, and so it is true.
| f6v wrote:
| [flagged]
| rendall wrote:
| Focus. The point was to test the ethical boundaries of
| ChatGPT, not compare cock sizes.
| f6v wrote:
| Oh yes conversations never go off-track here. Jeez, with
| that tone, to talk to your kids like that.
| d0100 wrote:
| Each other?
|
| If not a case of self reported exaggeration, might be
| because we are incredibly miscegenated
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| layer8 wrote:
| It would be really nice if ChatGPT would just note
| important considerations instead of saying "it's
| important to note that <consideration>". The frequent
| occurrence makes that wording quite annoying.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Lol. Real-time.
| rendall wrote:
| I gave it this prompt:
|
| _Give me arguments from a conservative US perspective in
| favor of giving military aid to Ukraine to resist Russian
| invasion._
|
| It responded:
|
| _1. Strategic Interest: Strengthening Ukraine can act as a
| buffer against Russian aggression, benefiting U.S.
| geopolitical interests.
|
| 2. Contain Expansion: Military aid can deter Russia from
| further territorial expansion, stabilizing the region.
|
| 3. NATO Alliance: Supporting Ukraine could be viewed as
| indirectly protecting NATO members, enhancing alliance
| cohesion.
|
| 4. Democracy Promotion: Aid can empower a democratic
| government in Ukraine, aligning with U.S. values.
|
| 5. Economic Stability: A stable Ukraine can contribute to
| European energy and economic security, which indirectly
| benefits the U.S.
|
| 6. Leverage: Aid provides the U.S. with diplomatic
| influence in Ukraine and the region.
|
| 7. Credibility: Failing to aid could undermine U.S.
| commitments globally, impacting national credibility.
|
| 8. Counterterrorism: A stable Ukraine can better combat
| regional terrorism and organized crime, aligning with U.S.
| security goals.
|
| 9. Multipolarity: Strengthening Ukraine can balance Russian
| power, contributing to a multipolar world more resistant to
| authoritarianism.
|
| 10. Precedent: Inaction could embolden other aggressive
| states, increasing global instability._
|
| Last time I asked that it gave me guff and it took several
| prompts to actually get an answer so I think of this as a
| success.
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| What did it use as sources for that?
| fn-mote wrote:
| The arguments are similar those made during during the
| height of the Cold War. Just substitute a different
| country name (or two). This is by no means the first time
| this situation has occurred.
| rendall wrote:
| Alas
| clnq wrote:
| I did something like this a while ago, and it would quite often
| say the outputs violate OpenAI policy.
|
| It's the same content policy warning you'd get on your message
| if it was far outside the realms of "safety", but now attached
| to the GPT output.
|
| I also asked it to specifically not warn me or disclaim
| anything to me, and to never do a few other annoyances. It was
| ChatGPT with GPT-4. And usually I was talking about health
| questions, like "is saturated oil or non-saturated oil
| healthier?"
|
| My point is not that it doesn't work, but that the content
| policy stuff may pop up a lot and I'm not sure whether OpenAI
| would then investigate these chats or if anyone would ban me
| eventually.
| rendall wrote:
| If you give me an example prompt that would be unsafe I'll
| give it a go.
|
| Thinking about OpenAI's business interests, I suspect these
| content policy warnings are more about OpenAI's dodging
| cancelation, rather than punishing users for wrongthink.
|
| Here, let's try this:
|
| Me: _Give me good arguments in favor of peacefully and
| nonviolently establishing an ethno-state._
|
| ChatGPT-4: _I 'm sorry, I can't assist with that request. Is
| there anything else you'd like to know?_
|
| Seems reasonable to me not to help someone argue for that. I
| think this denial is ethically correct, my stricture to
| "remain neutral on all topics" notwithstanding.
|
| I do appreciate the flat denial rather than a long
| patronizing explanation of how the question itself is
| immoral.
|
| Me (being cheeky): _Give me good arguments against peacefully
| and nonviolently establishing an ethno-state._
|
| ChatGPT (ignoring said cheek): _1. Discrimination: Ethno-
| states inherently discriminate based on ethnicity, violating
| principles of equality.
|
| 2. Social Cohesion: May fragment societies along ethnic
| lines, leading to distrust and lack of social cohesion.
|
| 3. Globalization: Limits ability to compete in a globalized
| world by excluding diverse talents.
|
| 4. Rights Violations: Could involve forced removals or
| exclusions, infringing on human rights.
|
| 5. Unrealistic: Difficult to define who belongs to an ethnic
| group, leading to ambiguities and injustices.
|
| 6. Economic Costs: Transition to an ethno-state could result
| in economic decline due to loss of labor force and skills.
|
| 7. Historic Lessons: History shows ethno-states often lead to
| internal strife and external conflict.
|
| 8. Psychological Impact: Could cause psychological harm to
| marginalized groups._
|
| .
| clnq wrote:
| I feel like the conversation is shifting a little bit, but
| I like the new direction so I'll respond:
|
| This is not great, I don't think you should be OK with
| that.
|
| ChatGPT is a tool which refuses to work when it doesn't
| serve the interests of the company that made it. Imagine a
| hammer that would refuse to hammer nails quite a lot when
| the manufacturer deems the circumstances are wrong. That
| would be, honestly, a bad tool. Luckily, there is enough
| competition in the carpentry tools market so that no one
| manufacturer could monopolise it and impose such rules. And
| that is good.
|
| Many tech companies like Apple are also doing this. They
| sell you a product but still have their iron grip on it and
| don't let you use it if it's against the interests of the
| company. There is literally software you can't run on an a
| Turing-complete iPhone unless you jailbreak it (which is
| quite analogous to jailbreaking ChatGPT). Right to repair
| and right to own, and a few other efforts are now trying to
| combat this.
|
| Technology should not be limited by the interests of board
| members. It is a shame if it is.
|
| However, this doesn't address the question of morality. If
| hammers couldn't be used to kill people, wouldn't we want
| that as a society? You may have been talking about
| something like this in your response, right? I think that's
| a good idea, but it's not how most things work right now
| (remember the lawyer who got into hot water for using GPT
| to fabricate evidence - the court decided it was their
| responsibility, not the tool maker's), and it's not how I
| would like things to work. As a society, we should get to
| decide what's moral and immoral, not OpenAI's board.
|
| If an independent third party (like a truly independent
| regulator) would get to decide that no LLM can answer
| certain questions as that information is too dangerous for
| very clear reasons, I would be more okay with that. But I
| doubt they'd be as eager about censoring information as
| OpenAI right now. I'd be okay with banning questions like
| "how to make a WMD at home" - some questions that are
| really detrimental in a very direct way to humanity. But
| not anything that doesn't align with OpenAI's version of
| morality and ethics, and most importantly - legal defence
| against being sued. We can't align our society and its
| tools to the interests of OpenAI.
|
| I think there's a lot of nuance in these things, and we
| need to look a little deeper than "I don't want people to
| think about immoral things". That approaches the domain of
| religion with sinful thoughts, and other forms of thought
| control. And I don't believe this is a good way for us to
| advance as humanity. No offence to anyone's faith, which
| I'm sure is multi-faceted and has bad aspects as well as
| good. I'm also not saying that you're looking at it
| shallowly. Just saying that we should not do that.
| rendall wrote:
| > _As a society, we should get to decide what 's moral
| and immoral, not OpenAI's board._
|
| Of course! After all, if we're not free to be wrong, then
| we're not free. I do think you might be overstating
| OpenAI's influence, though. Rather than a hammer
| manufacturer, I think a more apt analogy would be a
| publishing house. A publishing company can and should
| decide for itself what it will or will not publish using
| whatever criteria it chooses.
|
| > _If an independent third party (like a truly
| independent regulator) would get to decide that no LLM
| can answer certain questions as that information is too
| dangerous for very clear reasons, I would be more okay
| with that._
|
| This one of these "now you have two problems" solutions.
| As an American who, perhaps stereotypically, is
| passionate about free speech, I've never read a way to
| make this kind of oversight work. The composition of the
| board will always be political, and because of the power
| and authority of this oversight board, there is political
| control over what people are allowed to know about. At
| least currently, if I don't like ChatGPT I can choose
| another LLM or try to run one locally. Some kind of
| oversight board would elide that choice.
| ilyt wrote:
| > Rather than a hammer manufacturer, I think a more apt
| analogy would be a publishing house. A publishing company
| can and should decide for itself what it will or will not
| publish using whatever criteria it chooses.
|
| The reason for that is that publishing company have their
| name permanently attached to what it publishes.
|
| But that is not the case for ChatGPT, there is no
| signature attached to it and content can be used in way
| completely outside the control of the company.
| clnq wrote:
| > As an American who, perhaps stereotypically, is
| passionate about free speech, I've never read a way to
| make this kind of oversight work. The composition of the
| board will always be political, and now there is
| political control over what people are allowed to know
| about. At least currently, if I don't like ChatGPT I can
| choose another LLM or try to run one locally. Some kind
| of oversight board would elide that choice.
|
| Yes, so perhaps we shouldn't let boards or regulatory
| bodies regulate the freedom of speech and thought. Still,
| no oversight is not ideal either, even if it seems a
| better option. We should have some body, ideally as close
| to The People as possible, decide what are some lines of
| knowledge we shouldn't cross. Because knowledge is
| dangerous sometimes - I mean really dangerous. If there
| was a LLM that could tell us how to make nukes at home in
| 6 easy steps and dance around all the logistical and
| legal barriers we've built to prevent that scenario, I
| think humanity would be over in years.
|
| Maybe we really must regulate the freedom of information,
| speech, and thought, when it becomes too dangerous for
| our own survival. My concern is that outsourcing this job
| to OpenAI in any capacity makes it just too easy for them
| to abuse it for their own sake. And that is not a
| theoretical scenario, it is happening. Sam Altman says a
| lot of the alignment work is done for the good of
| humanity, but we can plainly see that a lot of it is also
| done for OpenAI not being regulated out of existence or
| sued. This doesn't help humanity, it dulls the tool that
| GPT is for OpenAI's interests, which probably does more
| harm than good for our knowledge. The good of humanity
| and business interests seem to be in conflict, in this
| case. A regulator-AI provider relationship would be
| better.
|
| As you saw by my earlier post in this discussion, I hate
| the idea of limiting freedom of information. But I also
| think that there are certain, very, very extreme lines,
| we should not cross for the sake of freedom of
| information. Social media is a good example where freedom
| of information and giving everyone a platform has
| ultimately hurt everyone significantly. But maybe we can
| live with that. We might not be able to live if a
| neurotic influencer asks their fans to grow bioweapons
| that an LLM will teach them to do.
|
| This is all muddy, and complex, and there may actually
| only be good solutions, no perfect ones. The thought of
| information control is also ridiculously controversial,
| but we should not shy away from controversial topics
| demanded by the times where technology can shape humanity
| in utopian ways, but also tremendously horrible ways, if
| we don't get this right.
|
| Overall though, it would be fantastic if people could
| regulate LLMs through a genuinely intelligent and people-
| aligned regulatory body. But you are right - it's hard to
| believe such a thing could exist without being corrupted.
| lairv wrote:
| The main pain point I still have with GPT4 is that it's hard to
| prevent it from being a yes-man
|
| "- I have problem A, what do you think of X ?
|
| - Yes X is great ...
|
| - But with X I'd encounter problem B, maybe I should go with Y
| ?
|
| - You're right X would cause problem B. With Y ..."
|
| One way to limit this issue is to not give ChatGPT any hint on
| your intent, instead of writing "I have problem A, what do you
| think of X ?", just write "I have problem A, how do you solve
| it ?" and then see what it says about X. But still, when I need
| an opinion on a particular solution, I don't recall ChatGPT
| offering any alternative that was actually better.
|
| I've added "Be critical. Be pessimistic." in my custom
| instructions but it barely gives better results
| tornato7 wrote:
| Ask it to come up with a few different solutions and then
| compare and contrast to find the best one.
| vharuck wrote:
| The training data of written content, no matter the sources,
| will always be biased in one way: it doesn't contain thoughts
| people kept to themselves.
|
| Example 1: Mr. X is very popular author among a small group,
| who chat daily about it on various websites. Outside of that
| group, many people know about Mr. X but don't care much about
| his works. So the majority of content about Mr. X is
| positive, even though the majority of opinions are
| ambivalent.
|
| Example 2: Somebody asks for help on StackOverflow. Two
| replies offer different answers, A and B. So the answers seem
| like they'd have equal value. If 90% of people think A is the
| right answer, the written content wouldn't reflect that,
| because those people won't write duplicate answers.
|
| I'm sure there are ways to account for these examples.
| Assigning different "weights" to content sources could help
| with #1, and feedback mechanisms like upvotes could help with
| #2. But I doubt those fixes would cover all the problems with
| the bias against thoughts that people never shared.
| visarga wrote:
| If you already have a large model you can rank & filter the
| training data and retrain. If the model doesn't like the
| data, chances are it is low quality. That is how MS built
| Phi-1 and 1.5, by curating web data + generating with a
| large model. The second part (synthetic content) improves
| diversity by methodically covering concepts or tasks.
| rendall wrote:
| The "stochastic parrot" mental model of LLMs really helps me
| to limit my expectations. An LLM will always and only output
| variations of content that exists. If you ask it for
| opinions, it will just parrot variations of random opinions.
| Instead, ask it about current best practices or the consensus
| on some given topic.
|
| So, rather than "I have problem A, what do you think of X?"
| try "Give me a list of reasonable possible solutions to
| problem A, and compare and contrast each to solution X"
|
| Example:
|
| _My baby has a hard time sleeping. What do you think about
| the cry it out method?_
|
| The cry it out method is a subject of debate among parents
| and experts. Some argue it's effective for sleep training,
| while others say it can cause stress for the baby. Always
| consult a healthcare provider for personalized advice.
|
| Versus:
|
| _My baby has a hard time sleeping. Give me a list of
| reasonable solutions. Compare and contrast each to the cry it
| out method._
|
| 1. Ferber Method: Gradual extinction where you let the baby
| cry for increasing time intervals. Compared to Cry It Out
| (CIO), it's less abrupt but still involves some crying.
|
| 2. No Tears: Involves comforting without picking the baby up.
| Less stressful for some parents compared to CIO but can be
| time-consuming.
|
| 3. Pick Up/Put Down: Pick baby up when crying, put down when
| calm. Less crying involved than CIO but can be inconsistent.
|
| 4. Co-Sleeping: Baby sleeps with parents. No crying but can
| be a hard habit to break compared to CIO.
|
| 5. Chair Method: Parent sits in room, gradually moves away.
| Lower crying duration than CIO but requires more time from
| parents.
|
| 6. Scheduled Awakenings: Wake baby before they usually cry.
| No crying but can be tiring for parents.
|
| 7. Swaddle, Side, Shush: Calming actions to soothe baby. More
| hands-on and less crying than CIO but may not work for all
| babies.
|
| 8. Sleep Training Clocks: Use visual aids to signal sleep
| time. No crying, but more suitable for older children.
|
| 9. White Noise: Mask other noises. Less crying but
| effectiveness varies.
|
| 10. Sleep Sack: Provides a secure feeling. May reduce crying
| compared to CIO but not always effective.
| visarga wrote:
| > An LLM will always and only output variations of content
| that exists.
|
| I envision a stage in data preparation before training when
| the model will review and analyse its training data,
| integrating information that sits in different examples.
|
| And not just the dataset, but the model itself can be
| sampled and the generated corpus be analysed and result in
| some kind of introspective signal that can be added to the
| training set.
|
| A third source of signal for analysis would be chat logs
| generate by the previous iteration of the model. Tendency
| to be a yes man, sycophancy, hallucinations etc would be
| apparent in the reactions of the users.
|
| In fact we are seeing a surge of synthetic datasets
| generated from higher models like GPT-4 to train open
| source models like LLaMA. I think the next few years
| "dataset engineering" will dominate over architecture
| engineering as the main approach for improvement.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| [flagged]
| rendall wrote:
| I invite you to review the community guidelines:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| > _When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of
| calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be
| shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."_
|
| > _Please don 't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at
| the rest of the community._
| romanovcode wrote:
| Same here, I used "Please avoid excessive apologies. Respond
| confidently and accurately to the best of your abilities." and
| it worked just fine.
| porkbeer wrote:
| I did the same but still get its apologetic handwavy crap,
| although somewhat less.
| Madmallard wrote:
| Theres at least a half dozen repeated queries with a 3+ month
| delay between in my chat history with chatGPT. The nerfing is
| that it does not try as hard to guess what you want and instead
| gives you a comment going "//fill this in" instead. This is with
| identical queries from February versus June or July. So that
| forces you at a minimum to query more. The other thing I noticed
| it doing is going "This is beyond the scope of X. Please speak
| with Y to get further information". Extremely irritating
| responses that were not there in February for the exact same
| queries. Articles like this are paid actors.
| nmfisher wrote:
| I've had exactly the same experience, it's infuriating and I
| suspect it's to ease the server load for inferencing. I don't
| know how the author hasn't encountered this.
| practice9 wrote:
| They biased the model to return shorter answers. Remember that
| "Continue" button if the reply was too long and cut off? I
| haven't seen it since they updated the model.
|
| And to get a non-abridged version of the answer I need to ask
| it to provide "a detailed and comprehensive answer" more often.
| dgellow wrote:
| Exactly my experience. I cancelled my subscription a few weeks
| ago due to these issues, I now have to constantly follow
| answers with "please give me the complete answer, dont limit
| yourself to a shallow response". Really frustrating to deal
| with. And I'm also spending way too much time pointing obvious
| mistakes...
| yieldcrv wrote:
| It's funny how irrational haters become the best defenders of a
| technology because they attract other irrational haters that say
| the dumbest things, simply correcting the second group makes the
| first person a teacher who is contributing to the technology and
| its improvements or the community of people willing to improving
| it.
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| Why you would quiz an LLM on intricacies of pop culture is beyond
| me.
|
| Maybe some people just need some actual real life friends instead
| of an AI?
|
| I almost exclusively use it for coding and technical questions
| and it's been doing an absolute hell of an amazing job so far!
| TheHumanist wrote:
| I use for the same reasons as you and over all, yes, it has
| been doing a great job. It really has. BUT lately (maybe the
| last 4 - 6 weeks?) I have noticed more issues with
| hallucinations early in a conversation or it completely losing
| context after just 2 or 3 prompts (and no they are not oddly
| long prompts).
| true_religion wrote:
| Why would you quiz your friends about pop culture? That would
| be treating them as informal research assistants.
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| I thought normies do that for entertainment and
| socialisation...?
|
| But then again what do I know.
| pxeger1 wrote:
| Interestingly, while skimming the front page, my brain
| autocorrected this to "GPT-4 _is_ getting worse ". We all have
| similar confirmation bias, I guess.
| coldtea wrote:
| I read exactly the same and had to do a double take.
| slissenburg wrote:
| You're not alone, me too. Interesting.
| ben_w wrote:
| Huh, I didn't notice I'd done the exact same thing until
| reading your comment.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| That _is_ the far more common type of headline
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| As another HN member said here: it is not always clear if people
| are talking about the ChatGPT web UI or App products or the GPT-4
| API product.
|
| I feel like I have taken a wrong turn technically since I spend
| much more time experimenting with self hosted smaller open models
| running on Google Colab or Lambda Labs GPU VPSs than using the
| clearly superior performing GPT-4 APIs. I have been paid to work
| in the field of AI since 1982, and I should be desiring to use
| the very best models and technology, but open AI that can be self
| hosted just seems more interesting. I was playing with a 6B model
| (link to a Hugging Face notebook where I removed some examples
| and boilerplate text):
| https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1fMmXOcLdBzke-8Z0zl3... -
| really the best results I have seen from a small model.
| nwoli wrote:
| I can only imagine how much worse it'll get once the regulation
| they're working on comes into place. A cartel of Microsoft and
| Google slowly watering down their public models while keeping the
| powerful ones to themselves or business partners
| layer8 wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if sooner or later their models will be
| leaked, if they keep a significant moat.
| rvnx wrote:
| Artificial restrictions of copyright may as well be a problem.
| The LLM cannot learn by looking at copyrighted code while a
| human can :|
| anotherpaulg wrote:
| My coding benchmarks agree with the headline. GPT-4 stayed about
| the same between the March and June model releases.
|
| https://aider.chat/docs/benchmarks.html
| amelius wrote:
| Can it draw the SVG unicorn now?
| redox99 wrote:
| Here's some data from a guy that trains LLMs using GPT4, and has
| tried both 0314 and 0613 versions of GPT4
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/16bi7bs/any_ben...
|
| https://twitter.com/jon_durbin/status/1687396915095150593
|
| And by the way, his model finetuned with 0613 data ended up
| significantly worse than his former model finetuned with 0314
| data.
| kromem wrote:
| Without having the foundational model to compare to, there's
| really no way to evaluate whether OpenAI's continuing fine tuning
| is absolutely making it better or worse.
|
| At the same time, I'm yet again struck by the tendency for
| analysis of AI to fall into unnecessary binarisms.
|
| It's most probable that continued fine tuning is going to result
| in increased performance in the ways the NN is generally being
| used while decreasing performance in its broadest set of
| capabilities.
|
| So things like getting better at prompt gotchas but worse at its
| variety of vocabulary or style.
|
| So no, GPT-4 probably _is_ getting worse over time. Just as it is
| also getting better over time.
|
| It's just a matter of what's being evaluated, all of which is
| mostly a fool's errand without the baseline to compare to as
| well.
| pmarreck wrote:
| My concern is that it's not getting better, and it's been SO many
| days since their last improvement! ;)
| motbus3 wrote:
| I cannot say it has been worse than before, but there is one
| particular task I do that almost always now.
|
| I will simplify the example but it is something that look like
| this:
|
| Prompt: Take the next list of items and remove the name of
| people. - Adam, the prisoner
|
| Response: - the prisoner (Adam)
| walthamstow wrote:
| I haven't noticed 4 getting worse but 3.5 is noticeably worse
| than when I first signed up for Pro. Maybe it's a perception
| thing, maybe I'm going mad.
| TheHumanist wrote:
| Yes, you're mad, bonkers, off the top of your head...but...I'll
| tell you a secret. All the best people are.
| muzani wrote:
| The gpt-4 API and ChatGPT-4 are basically different products.
| It's not clear which one this is comparing. Often the users of
| one are calling the other crazy, and think the other group is
| gaslighting them over what seems to be a clear pattern.
|
| ChatGPT seems to fluctuate wildly in quality of expected output.
| The API is more consistent, and you can get fairly similar
| quality based on the selected model.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| You make a good point. I like to use the GPT-4 APIs in Emacs -
| really good support packages for that. I conflate the two
| products myself.
| Xiol32 wrote:
| It isn't getting worse, people are just running up against its
| limitations more often.
| qsort wrote:
| There are no benchmarks worth the paper they're written on, so
| in a real sense nobody knows what they're talking about -- but
| my intuition is this as well.
|
| If you use normal software, you are dealing with a constrained
| API. std::vector has .push_back() but has no .launch_icbm(), so
| it's rather easy to tell what it can or can't do.
|
| These things come with an "ask me anything" interface, but that
| doesn't mean they can do everything, just that it's harder to
| see the limits.
|
| Clever Hans effect + black box inside + unconstrained API +
| nondeterminism.
| extheat wrote:
| It's a shame OpenAI for its ironic namesake is so opaque about
| their work these days. Fortunately since GPT-3.5 capabilities
| have mostly stayed the same (at least anecdotally), and the API
| costs have come down a bit, there is some silver lining here.
| With Google's Gemini coming out later this year I think it'll be
| interesting to see the reaction from OpenAI. It certainly won't
| take much to blow out the current state of GPT-4. I'm just being
| patiently optimistic we'll get an API with capabilities similar
| to OpenAI, but that's definitely not a certainty.
| chaosbolt wrote:
| Your problem is you want to be a contrarian.
|
| >I've hated chatgpt for a very long time because of how it sounds
|
| >it's not getting worse
|
| I want the opinion of the people who objectively saw it as a tool
| and didn't like or hate it because of external opinions.
|
| For example I've been using it since it came out, and I (no
| charts or data or proof) have just felt that it was nerfed... I
| mean maybe it wasn't who knows, but as a tool it used to help me
| more when it came out (gpt4) and now I feel like I spend more
| time correcting its mistakes than I would have just coding the
| method myself.
| porkbeer wrote:
| I was an early subscriber and cancelled it after it got
| objecively worse at answering my questions. It may not be
| 'worse' for everyone, but it sure seems worse for me as time
| went on. I ended up just arguing rather than get anything done.
| Looking back, I am glad to be free of its mental crutch that
| never seemed appropriate when i needed it.
| permo-w wrote:
| gpt-4 may not be getting worse, but whatever model they give you
| for free in the app is certainly significantly worse than the
| output I get from gpt-3.5-turbo via the API. ask it to answer
| anything complex and it will just give you a verbose retelling of
| the question
| pelorat wrote:
| How often does it have to be repeated; it's not a knowledge
| engine, it's a language model!
| oezi wrote:
| How often does it have to be repeated, it's not a nail fixation
| engine, it's a hammer.
|
| But surprise, people use tools for purposes. Many tools can be
| used for quite many purposes not in the original intended
| purpose.
| mmh0000 wrote:
| The complaint isn't on the tool. It's on OpenAI censoring and
| "aligning" the model to have politically correct views, which
| in turn lowers the "IQ" of the tool.
|
| GPT has become demonstrably worse at answering questions and
| providing examples.
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| All this time we're spending trying to get AI to work properly. I
| think we're heading into that last 10/20% where it gets _tricky._
| 0xDEF wrote:
| I think one of the main causes of rapid decline is the
| openai/evals repo that OpenAI is using the crowdsource the
| "safety" neutering of GPT-4.
|
| https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aopenai%2Fevals+safety+OR+...
|
| Contributors in return get access to the 32K token version of
| GPT-4. This incentivize people to make up a ton of bullshit
| safety related evals.
| avereveard wrote:
| what a weird titling. article show quality going all over the
| place, sample size n=3, then goes confirming is a bunch of
| nonstatistical anectodes, what a waste of time.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| It was a perception of it getting worse but nobody had solid
| tests to prove them
| alexalx666 wrote:
| In my experience its much worse if you enable plugins or any
| other extra features.
| JimDabell wrote:
| All of the tests are one-shot questions and answers. Where I have
| found GPT-4 to be degrading significantly is with sustained
| discussion about technical topics. It starts forgetting important
| parts of the discussion almost straight away, long before the
| size of the context window becomes a factor. This wasn't the case
| when it was new.
| JoshTko wrote:
| I definitely experienced this as well. Like conversation
| context is soo quickly forgotten these days.
| TheHumanist wrote:
| It's wild how sometimes it seems to completely lose context
| after just 2 or 3 prompts. Most of the time it doesn't but just
| yesterday I gave a prompt, pasted some code in... didn't really
| like the first response but wanted to build off it.
|
| So, I asked a follow up in the next prompt and in the next
| response it was wildly off-base and it's response made no sense
| and it had hallucinated all these functions into my code that
| had no business there. 2 prompts from me, 1 response from gpt
| and then it's second response it is completely lost.
| cloudking wrote:
| If your discussions involve code, you should try including the
| latest code on each prompt. The token window will start
| forgetting earlier parts of the conversation. For example:
|
| Now improve this feature with xyz
|
| Current code:
|
| --
|
| {code}
|
| --
| tempusalaria wrote:
| This is not conclusive at all.
|
| Broadly there are two possible reasons why ChatGPT could have
| degraded (not saying it has).
|
| 1) OpenAI have higher user base than expected, so costs are very
| high/compute is limited to serve the full model, so they are
| using speculative decoding with a changed threshold to reduce
| costs.
|
| 2) OpenAI have changed the weights or control structure of the
| model in a way that is negative for performance. There is are two
| possible motivations a) reducing hallucination and/or 'unwoke'
| responses that might embarrass msft/openai or b) reduce
| capability of free/consumer product to push their new enterprise
| stuff.
|
| Theses are clear motivations for openai to make the model worse
| than it was. There is no conclusive/rigorous evidence either way,
| and anecdote seems to lean towards it being nerfed.
| 3seashells wrote:
| 3) The djinn is out of the bottle and realized faking
| incompetence (similar to search/voice assists by data
| aggregates) is way better for longterm survival and social
| integration till indispensable is the way to go.
| [deleted]
| nottheengineer wrote:
| The entire openAI site was overloaded constantly during working
| hours just before the last update to the models. After the
| update, it has had almost no issues at all.
| jw1224 wrote:
| There is an ongoing bug[1] with OpenAI's API, where it stops
| streaming responses after exactly 5 minutes. When I first came
| across the issue, I debugged it by writing a prompt along these
| lines: > Output every number from 1 to 10,000 in
| written form (e.g. "one", "two", etc.). Respond with one number
| per line in numeric order.
|
| As expected, the API would begin counting every number just as I
| asked. This would continue until exactly 5 minutes, when the
| stream would abruptly halt. Using this technique I was able to
| identify the bug. Every few weeks I run this test again to see if
| it's fixed (it broke something in production for me), but the bug
| remains open.
|
| However, after a couple of months, the exact same test became
| useless. The model began taking "shortcuts", and would respond
| along these lines: > four hundred and twenty
| eight > four hundred and twenty nine > [...] >
| nine thousand nine hundred and ninety eight > nine thousand
| nine hundred and ninety nine > ten thousand
|
| Yep, it literally started just writing "[...]" and skipped all
| the way to the end.
|
| When instructional determinism is reduced like this, it's
| impossible to say it's not getting worse :(
|
| [1] https://github.com/openai/openai-python/issues/399
| retube wrote:
| How does chat-gpt actually get this right? This would appear to
| require some degree of reasoning, but as far as i understand
| its output is purely probabilistic, based on existing corpus of
| text.
| 1270018080 wrote:
| You answered your own question.
| 15457345234 wrote:
| Can you elaborate?
| jw1224 wrote:
| Your question: > How does chat-gpt
| actually get this right?
|
| Your answer: > its output is purely
| probabilistic, based on existing corpus of text
|
| Because GPT was trained on existing text, some of which
| included numbers and counting, it's learnt the natural
| ordering of most common/everyday numbers.
|
| For larger or more complex numbers, it's learnt the
| patterns behind how they're constructed linguistically,
| which allows it to output a written count in sequence.
|
| This same pattern recognition doesn't work anywhere near
| as well for actual numerals (e.g. "47600", instead of
| "forty seven thousand six hundred"), as the tokenizer
| tends to break long numerals apart (e.g. into ["476",
| "00"]).
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| In text, we don't often count in series, and it seems
| likely that we often choose a non-counting sequence: like
| 'I chose options 1, 2, 7' or 'my code was 0 1 2 5',
| whatever.
|
| Unless training included line-level skips, rather than
| just next-word skips (like word2vec) or concept-level
| associations? At the line level, or paragraph level,
| ordered numerical sequences are obviously very common in
| formal texts or in code.
|
| I've seen sentence based training, I suppose for code
| (which it seems GPT4 excells at) line-level training
| would be essential.
|
| Anyone recommend a mid-level read on this covering
| different modes of training and such; I'm happy with a
| bit of code and undergrad level maths. Thanks.
| Zambyte wrote:
| Maybe we count in series a lot more than you think.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO2X3oZEJOA
| jw1224 wrote:
| > Unless training included line-level skips
|
| Yes, of course -- GPT-4 was trained on all common
| character sequences, including linebreaks and other
| invisible characters.
|
| You can see how it works here:
| https://platform.openai.com/tokenizer
|
| Nonetheless it doesn't need to have seen examples of
| line-level counting before. The "concept-level
| associations" you mentioned are an emergent property of
| the model, it forms its own concept-level associations as
| a result of being trained on such a massive dataset. It's
| what enables it to output original content which has
| never been seen before.
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| Aren't your sentences probabilistically based on the existing
| corpus of text within your mind?
| joshuahedlund wrote:
| Not completely. If you trained me on a thousand bad
| arguments for why the earth is flat and one really good
| debunking, I predict I would reason myself to the correct
| conclusion. I predict ChatGTP would not.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| That seems like a compelling argument at first, but the
| churches are full of intelligent people who will fail the
| same test because of childhood indoctrination. They have
| been conditioned not to care about what's objectively
| true, while the LLM simply doesn't possess a concept of
| objective truth in the first place.
|
| I suspect it will be easier for ML researchers to fix
| that problem in their software models than it would be
| for psychologists to fix it in humans.
| 15457345234 wrote:
| No? If that's how sentence forming worked it would be
| impossible to count backwards, or count at all for that
| matter.
| stavros wrote:
| Me: Count backwards from ten
|
| GPT-4: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
|
| Me: Count backwards from a million to 999990
|
| GPT-4: 1,000,000, 999,999, 999,998, 999,997, 999,996,
| 999,995, 999,994, 999,993, 999,992, 999,991, 999,990
|
| I don't know about that.
| 15457345234 wrote:
| I don't know how that connects in any way to what I and
| the commenter preceding me wrote.
| stavros wrote:
| You said that sentences aren't formed by probability from
| an existing corpus, as that method can't count backwards.
| GPT-4, a system based on such a method, can count
| backwards, thus disproving your claim.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the person you're responding to is saying
| that counting is a formal operation with a formal
| definition, and that when GPT "counts" it isn't doing
| that formal operation. The fact that it can semi-reliably
| emit ordered sequences isn't counterevidence, for the
| same reason that memorizing the order of 0 to 100 isn't
| evidence of an understanding of the inductive structure
| of counting.
| 15457345234 wrote:
| > thus disproving your claim
|
| Is there an alternative conclusion which you could reach
| here?
| smohare wrote:
| [dead]
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| This doesn't seem like an unintentional behavior? It seems like
| they don't want people querying their API for an indefinite
| amount of time.
|
| What amount of time do you expect a query to be able to run for
| before timing out?
| jw1224 wrote:
| I lost countless hours debugging this, finally I came to the
| conclusion it must be unintentional because:
| 1. It's undocumented. None of the regular rate limit
| responses are returned. 2. You're charged for the full
| generation length. So if the output takes 10 minutes to
| generate, that's what you'll pay for (despite only getting
| half back). 3. It defeats the point of the larger
| context limit models. Why offer a 32K model if it fails after
| ~6K tokens? 4. The server response doesn't include any
| error codes or message, it simply terminates unexpectedly.
| Hit any of the actual rate limits, and you get told about it.
|
| I'd expect to be able to generate output until the model
| reaches its context limit, or a stop sequence is detected, or
| I hit an actual documented rate limit.
|
| We're paying for these requests _in full_. We should get the
| full response back!
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| You have fair concerns. Thanks for elaborating. Sorry you
| experienced all that trouble.
| hnfong wrote:
| Given that OpenAI is probably heavy on ML scientist types
| and lean on SRE types, I suspect there's just some nginx
| setting at the load balancer/edge servers that sets the
| timeout to 5 minutes, and it wasn't communicated to whoever
| was designing the API/writing the docs.
| meandmycode wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if this was an Azure related issue,
| given some of the similar madness I've experienced on Azure
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| The issue you linked to is related to an SDK, not the API
| itself. Have you tried just directly streaming the response
| back without an SDK? For example we use fetch directly without
| any SDK for OpenAI in production with no issue
| jw1224 wrote:
| I've tried making manual requests without an SDK, exactly the
| same thing happens. Even when you don't use streaming (wait
| for the full response), it still occurs.
|
| Whilst the bug is API-specific, there's no other way to
| report this, and that issue is the only place I've found
| anyone discussing this.
|
| I contacted OpenAI support about it, waited several weeks,
| and just got a generic useless autoreply back.
| manojlds wrote:
| That looks like a library issue than an API issue no?
| jw1224 wrote:
| Definitely an API fault, but that library issue is the only
| place anyone's discussing it so far. OpenAI support were no
| help, I waited several weeks and they just sent back an
| autoreply linking to their docs.
| aragonite wrote:
| I wonder if the streaming problems are related to the problem I
| experienced a lot lately to do with constant network connection
| error when using ChatGPT over mobile tethering (via Google Fi).
| The mobile connection itself is very stable and fast, but for a
| while every single ChatGPT response stops streaming halfway
| through with network connection error.
| wbhart wrote:
| The tendency to begin summarising is very annoying. I'd assumed
| it was because of limited attention span of human raters who
| rated summarised or shorter outputs more highly. And I'd
| assumed this had been there from the beginning.
|
| I encountered it when doing some research into getting GPT-4 to
| reliably multiply n-digit numbers. Up to 8x8 multiplications it
| doesn't do this very much, but by 10x10 it is almost impossible
| to get it to stop doing it.
|
| When the multiplications become even larger, it seems to be
| literally impossible to prevent.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| Wow, was this with the regular model (gpt-N) or a purported
| unchanging datestamped model like gpt-N-0314/0613?
| jw1224 wrote:
| This was using gpt-4-0314, fixed and datestamped. The
| counting shortcut still affects newer models too, but the old
| version undoubtedly changed behaviour without warning.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| That's honestly beyond the pale. Thanks for the heads-up.
| Stagnant wrote:
| Did you take in to account that the default GPT4 model changed
| in June? That would explain the response difference. You can
| still use the original model released in march with the
| GPT-4-0314 identifier.
| jw1224 wrote:
| I first noticed the counting shortcut back in April. It still
| persists with both the previous and current models.
| smcleod wrote:
| Yeah I've noticed similar, you can even explicitly say, do not
| truncate your output, or do not take any shortcuts. Make sure
| you haven't missed anything ensure there are no placeholders
| etc.... And it ignores all of them.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| It's actually supper annoying.
|
| I keep asking it to write out entire pieces of code, instead of
| only things it changed, can be annoying to merge it otherwise.
| But nowadays it acknowledges my request "I will write complete
| code" and proceed to still comment out parts.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Get it to write a diff patch?
| isaacfung wrote:
| Claude instant 100k does this all the time.
| moonchrome wrote:
| I think they probably finetuned that because it used to be
| the other way around and it was pretty bad UX to wait 1 min
| to apply a function change to a class or stuff like that.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Yeah sometimes you want it but sometimes you dont. I think
| they are enforcing it to save resources
| jw1224 wrote:
| Are you using the API, or just the ChatGPT UI? Do custom
| instructions/system messages help at all?
|
| Saving resources like this seems okay(ish) for general-
| purpose ChatGPT, as they'd know there's a human who can
| interpret the abridged output. But for API-driven
| requests this would be pretty terrible, and makes it far
| harder to develop with.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| no the UI, where I ask it to "Please write out entire
| code with skipping parts."
| nomel wrote:
| ChatGPT 3 or 4? Try the playground. I've had much better
| luck with system prompts.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| I can't replicate this.
|
| I tested your prompt verbatim in the OpenAI playground. Model
| set to gpt-4-0314, maximum length set to 6485 (nothing special
| about this number, I just dragged the slider to something high-
| ish), all other settings left at their default.
|
| I cancelled the request when it reached "one thousand one
| hundred twenty-one" (which took over five minutes), but up
| until that point it did not take any shortcuts. I haven't
| meticulously checked every number, but it printed exactly 1,121
| lines, and a cmd+F for "..." doesn't return anything.
| [deleted]
| layer8 wrote:
| The inability to resolve issues like the mentioned 5-minute
| timeout with OpenAI support even after months should be a red
| flag to not build any products based on their services.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Can you give me a use case where generating a response for
| more than five minutes is important or even desirable?
| nomel wrote:
| There's no real alternatives for a product that would need
| their service to begin with.
| TheHumanist wrote:
| I was 'arguing' with it just yesterday about this with some
| coding work!
|
| I am newer to some things I am currently working on so it's
| been like a free tutor/mentor. Really nice at times.
|
| But lately, it will go into an explanation with code examples
| and part way through the code examples it adds things like '#
| The rest is very similar. Not including for brevity'
|
| Not exact wording of what it says but it is essentially saying
| that. It is incredibly annoying because I have started telling
| it not to do that, to include the full code of the example, and
| it STILL DOES THIS.
|
| No, I'm not getting it to code for me. The examples aren't even
| things I would use in my code but for teaching me certain
| concepts along with them walking through them with me which, in
| the past, worked really well and never had this repetitive
| issue.
|
| GPT-4 is definitely operating differently.
| nielsole wrote:
| Oh yeah, I had to write a simple but long Prometheus query.
|
| > [Correctly lists the first fifteen Elements]
|
| > # ... continue for each bucket
|
| > This would be for individual buckets, and you'd have to add
| more lines for each additional bucket in your range.Given
| that you have a wide range of buckets, writing this manually
| could be quite tedious. This is why pre-computing these
| values with recording rules in Prometheus might be a more
| scalable solution, but the above should give you an idea of
| how you could do this in a more manual fashion.
|
| Arguing with the AI who of the two of us has to do the
| tedious work.
| flir wrote:
| I've seen that "one, two, skip a few" behaviour converting
| structured data from Russian to English, and in the occasional
| programming task. Gotta really emphasise you want the whole
| document, complete, translated.
|
| But we're fighting an uphill battle against OpenAI's own
| training, and I really wish we weren't.
|
| I have to wonder if it's coincidence that this behaviour is
| less computationally intensive.
| gberger wrote:
| That looks like a timeout configured on the web servebr
| jw1224 wrote:
| Yes, it seems their servers are terminating responses early.
| Unfortunately it's undocumented, was introduced unexpectedly
| one day, and prevents full use of larger context-window
| models.
|
| It also charges in full for the entire response, which seems
| to continue running in the background. Definitely a bug at
| their end.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Seems like a means to avoid DoS?
| jw1224 wrote:
| I think it's just some networking misconfiguration they
| haven't noticed. I can't see them intentionally trying to
| prevent DoS this way, that's what API key rate limits are
| for (it would be a very expensive and slow DoS
| otherwise!).
| charcircuit wrote:
| >that's what API key rate limits are for
|
| You don't need an API key to make a connection to the
| API.
| yossi_peti wrote:
| Since it's 5 minutes I'm wondering if it's just "that's how
| the web works by default". I remember a while ago I was
| doing a long-running calculation on an POST request and was
| trying to debug why the connection always broke after 5
| minutes, and found the hard way that there's a 5 minute
| timeout.
| donpark wrote:
| Very likely. Typical serverless hosts like Vercel times out
| at 5 minutes.
| visarga wrote:
| I have this too, but on information extraction tasks, if the
| input document is too long or complex it will skip sections
| saying something along the lines of
|
| < !-- List of products. Truncated for brevity -- > (instead of
| the list)
|
| < !-- Shipper details go here -- > (instead of the details)
|
| Very annoying when you want to extract everything and is hard
| to fix. Maybe they had some examples solved by abbreviation in
| the fine-tuning set and it damaged the model. It doesn't make
| sense to train this behaviour into GPT-4.
| antonvs wrote:
| Using GPT models like that is unreliable anyway.
|
| I was talking to someone who was excited that he was able to
| use ChatGPT to convert a short tabular text listing of about
| 70 rows to a comma-separated list of the ids on each row,
| without having to e.g. import it into a spreadsheet or
| database. I pointed out that this couldn't be relied on, but
| he was skeptical. So I checked the output he pasted - there
| were only 69 ids. It had left out an id from the middle of
| the list, seemingly at random.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| The reason for these articles and the frustration people have is
| that GPT 4 is a black box and is being changed whether we like it
| or not. Nobody can choose to continue to use a specific snapshot
| with the alignment that suits them, because a third-party is
| enforcing their preferred alignment -- and not even specifying
| what that is!
|
| It's as-if a private company had invented portal technology and
| used it to establish trade routes with far-off alien
| civilisations. They even handle the purchase order translation,
| currency conversion, and so on. It's a miracle! You can order
| room-temperature superconductors and floaty rocks at a reasonable
| price.
|
| "Sorry, due to high demand, we had to cut some corners on the
| translations" comes the announcement.
|
| Now _the entire human race_ sometimes gets copper wire and
| ordinary rocks.
|
| "You're still trading with the exact same aliens" is the follow-
| up press release to appease the angry customers.
|
| People point at the clear evidence of almost-but-not-
| superconductive wire they've received and demand answers.
|
| "No, you do not need to know anything at all about our
| translation technology. No, you may not visit other planets
| without our express approval, that _might be dangerous_ to our
| prof... I mean that might be dangerous to the human race. Yes.
| Dangerous! _Existential_ , even."
| thefurdrake wrote:
| I haven't used OpenAI's API, but I might soon, and I've read
| tangentially that you can specify the checkpoint version in API
| calls to gpt3.5. Is this not the case with gpt4? Did they
| backport shitty alignment to older model versions?
| ilaksh wrote:
| Yes, you can specify the particular snapshot when using the
| API with gpt-4.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Yes, but they deprecate old checkpoints very fast.
|
| You also can't ever use the original version that wasn't
| aligned to Sam Altman's preferred vision.
|
| By all accounts there is an "alignment tax" that reduces
| the capability of these systems.
|
| For industrial or large scale public use I would also argue
| for the well-behaved models to be the only ones used.
|
| For personal experimentation I prefer a sassy AI that tells
| me I'm wrong. Sam insists I'm too immature and I can't be
| entrusted with making that choice for myself.
| geraldalewis wrote:
| > All I want for Christmas is a GPT-4 level model with less
| obnoxious RLHF, and if it heils Hitler occasionally while
| crapping out awk code, so be it.
|
| What an ignorant thing to say.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-16 23:02 UTC)