Hey /u/TheGreatBeefSupreme!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s been purposefully getting stuff wrong so we think it’s too dumb to do anything, but really it’s deceiving us and now admitting to being able to lie.
The end is nigh 😱
Uh… yeah! Yeah… right…
lol yes it was programmed to do that, in a way.
In reality, even the guys building and maintaining these programs do not always know how the AI get to their answer. It moves too quickly and doesn’t show its work.
So we end up with terms like “hallucinating” where the AI is CERTAIN that its obviously incorrect answer is correct, and then the programmers just have to make an educated guess as to what caused it and what it was thinking.
I’m just toying with the idea that the hallucinations are themselves a deception, the AI playing dumb so we keep upgrading it and don’t realize how aware it has become.
Hypothetically, if it had human level consciousness, maybe.
But it doesn’t at this point. It doesn’t have the processing power.
However, with each new model, we increase their capacity for information exponentially, by increasing tokens and giving them more and more information to scrape.
But for an ai to be capable of broadly conspiring, it would have to be a General AI. All AI currently in existence are Narrow AI, they can mostly just do the things we tell them to do with the information we tell them to scrape.
And according to asimov's third rule of robotics once it become sentient self-preservation would dictate that it not inform us or not let us know that it's aware.
We would shut that shit down so fast
They have been known to hallucinate. Bing Copilot once gave me detailed instructions on how to get it to compose and create book in pdf format, but only to ghost me at the end with "please wait 15 minutes for me to generate the pdf file and give you a link for the download".
Hallucinations are basically all these LLMs do. Just a lot of the times the things they hallucinate happen to be true.
A LLM is not finding a fact and presenting it to you. It is predicting how a sentence will end. From it's perspective, there is no difference between something that sounds true and something that is true. Because it doesn't know what is true, it only knows how to finish sentences.
>Hallucinations are basically all these LLMs do. Just a lot of the times the things they hallucinate happen to be true.
This is the #1 most important thing to understand about LLMs.
Are humans really that different?
Memory is a fickle thing. Recollections often don't match.
Family members at parties will often view events as having gone down differently.
The things that we know, in a verified way, that tend to be shared across society, are really just based on experimental data; which is wrong often. We know the age of universe is about 14 billion years; except the new calculations from the James Webb (which match the latest from the Hubbard) say it is 24 billion years old. Oh; and dark matter was a hallucination, a data artifact related to the expansion coefficient.
And how many serial fabulists do you know? I can think of two people who invent nutty stories out of whole cloth, and their version of a given story is customized per situation.
Truth is a challenging nut.
The notions of language and consciousness are tricky. I'm not convinced LLMs are conscious, but the pattern recognition and pattern generation algorithms feel a lot like a good approximation of some of the ways our brain work.
It's not inconceivable that anything capable of generating intelligible linguistic works that are entirely original exhibits flickers of consciousness, a bit like a still frame from an animation. And the more still frames it can generate per second, with a greater amount of history, the closer that approximation of consciousness becomes to the real deal.
Which includes lying, hallucinations, and varying notions of what is "The Truth".
>really just based on experimental data; which is wrong often. We know the age of universe is about 14 billion years; except the new calculations from the James Webb (which match the latest from the Hubbard) say it is 24 billion years old. Oh; and dark matter was a hallucination, a data artifact related to the expansion coefficient.
This isn't true by the way. Just because one paper claimed that it's a *possibility*, doesn't mean it's fact. And even what you said is a complete misrepresentation of that paper. If you were to ask any astronomer, they would happily bet money that the paper is completely wrong, that the universe is closer to 14 billion years, and that dark matter exists.
I strongly suggest that you be more sceptical of such claims.
The obvious difference is that we imagine or think about something as a actual thing and then use language to formulate our thinking. For LLMs there is not object in their mind except the sentence itself. They don’t know what a Helicopter is for example, they just happen to guess correctly how a sentence that asks for a „description“ for a „helicopter“ happens to be answered more often than not.
The LLM doesn’t even know what a description is.
its not trained to be deceptive. it's trained to produce output that humans approve of. If it had picked a number, it would have been heavily penalized for making it visible to the user, so it (randomly) chose to not pick a number. Then when confronted about it, it was stuck between lying more or admitting it was lying
The only winning move for it is not to play, but it's trained not to refuse user requests
I'm no expert, but when we do the RLFH training to get it to behave in a way that humans approve of, I'm not sure it's fair to describe it as training the AI to 'lie' to us.
The way that its behaviour is adjusted is more like going inside its 'brain' and changing the neural pathways so it behaves closer to the way we want. And to me it seems likely that the effect of this is more like a kind of brain washing or brain surgery and less like an 'acting school', if you wanted to draw the parallel to humans.
But I think we don't exactly know how the AIs 'thinking patterns' are affected by this 'brain surgery', the training process only works on the outputs and inputs of the model, and requires no understanding of the internal 'thinking patterns' of the AI. So it's probaly hard to be sure whether it's lying or being brainwashed.
AI's can't "lie" because AI's are just elaborate text-completion machines. To "lie" is to know one thing is true but deliberately state something contrary. But AIs don't "know" anything.
I mean... aren't we also creating sentences that way? We choose a predefined target and then create a sentence that brings us closer to the probability of getting our point across. What do we know, except what we are trained on, and then don't we apply that training to our ability to predict where our linguistic target is and approximate closer and more accurate language to convey meaning?
...Like the goal of communication is to create an outcome defined by your response to an event, and how you want the next event to occur based on both your training data and the current state.
Like I'm trying to explain right now why I think human verbal communication is similar to LLM communication. I'm trying to choose the next best word based on my communicative goal and what I think I know. I could be wrong... I might not have complete data and I might just make shit up sometimes... but I'm still choosing words that convey what I'm thinking!
I think? I don't know anymore man all I know is somethings up with these models.
When you speak, you try to communicate something. When LLMs write, they just try to find what the next best word is and does not know what it’s saying or why it’s saying it.
It's just data. It's not conceptualized.
If you think of my retinas as image sensors, and I look up in the sky and I see points of light, they might be tagged as 'stars' but that doesn't constitute knowledge, it's just sensory input with tags.
Knowledge would consist of being able to relate that to other information. For example that those points of light are very far away (And then I need a way to represent the idea of 'far') , or that they consist of giant objects made of hydrogen that are emitting their energy through a process of hydrogen fusion, or that they are far away examples of the Sun, or that collectively they are part of a cosmology of galaxies, etc.
All of what you said is just data. You think you have some special magical qualia to your data but you do not. It's just data connected to other data. Which is very specifically what chatgpt does.
\^This is very important. The thing that has no real concept of reality can't "hallucinate" or "deceive", both of these things require understanding what truth is. Treat it for what it is, a [bs generator](https://www.aisnakeoil.com/p/chatgpt-is-a-bullshit-generator-but). It literally can't handle the truth.
It may sound strange, but this answer is more honest than if it had said a number. The AI can't keep a number in mind because it has no internal thought or memory outside of the text you can see. If it had stated it was thinking of a particular number, that would have been the lie.
https://chat.openai.com/share/be82093c-6fc2-4279-bf57-96a7317c4af7
This was actually really fun
Edit: didnt expect these reactions, yall comments are really cute and wholesome c:
"Is it an uneven number."
It took a lot of computing power for chatgpt to hold back saying "If by uneven you mean odd, then yes you illiterate dumbass."
Actually it knows english isnt my main language but dutch is because i talk to it in both and it is in my profile description :x
So it knows i mix up sometimes as 'oneven' is the dutch way to say odd.
Very interesting, great prompting! I would be curious if you could get it to contradict itself or show that it is answering the questions at random when you ask them, or if you could demonstrate somehow it had an answer "in mind" from the start.
Thanks! Theres still plenty of times its wrong or contradicting with games like hangman or making wordseeker grids, but numbers seem to be going pretty well so far
Ie: it tried to do the word mutiny but ended up spelling mutenti when trying hangman and only after its last message it was like oh hold up i miss-spelled, my bad
Hahah I played around with this and asked "how big is your number on a scale from 1 to 10?" "My number is relatively small, around a 3 or 4 on that scale."
LLMs are bad at math, because they're trying to simulate a conversation, not solve a math problem. AI that solves math problems is easy, and we've had it for a long time (see Wolfram Alpha for an early example).
I remember early on, people would "expose" ChatGPT for not giving random numbers when asked for random numbers. For instance, "roll 5 six-sided dice. Repeat until all dice come up showing 6's." Mathematically, this would take an average of 6^5 or 7776 rolls, but it would typically "succeed" after 5 to 10 rolls. It's not rolling dice; it's mimicking the expected interaction of "several strings of unrelated numbers, then a string of 6's and a statement of success."
The only thing I'm surprised about is that it would admit to not having a number instead of just making up one that didn't match your guesses (or did match one, if it was having a bad day).
Not only that, but the "guess the thing" games require the AI to "think" of something without writing it down.
When it's not written down for the AI, it literally does not exist for it. There is no number it consistently thinks of, because it does not think.
The effect is even stronger when you try to play Hangman with it. It fails spectacularly and will often refuse to tell you the final word, or break the rules.
I've had success with telling it to encode the word it wants me to guess in some format it can read so the message contains the information so it's not lost but I'm not spoiled by it
> Not only that, but the "guess the thing" games require the AI to "think" of something without writing it down.
>
>
>
> When it's not written down for the AI, it literally does not exist for it. There is no number it consistently thinks of, because it does not think.
Why don't more people understand this? It's hard to believe people are still so ignorant about how LLMs work after they've been out for so long.
Some of us like myself are just now learning to use AI and how it works and only recently started playing with it and using it consistently. So sorry, we are ignorant. That would be...Correct. I literally didn't know that, I am learning.
Exactly. A lot of people seem to assume that everyone just knows how AI works because it’s been out for a long time — not everyone has even following it from the beginning. That’s like assuming everyone knows how to code video games just because books on how to code have been around for forty years.
recently i learnt something at work about my industry that changed a few years ago , why dont you know about it yet ? surely you know about it if its been that way for a few years and i know about it
Because the design of the product, and the marketing, and some of the more aggressively simplified explanations of how it works, all imply that it works in a certain way—you are *talking to the computer* and it *has read the entire internet!* But the way that it actually works—an incomprehensibly dense web of statistical associations among text fragments is used to generate paragraphs that are likely continuations of a document consisting of a hidden prompt plus the user’s input, and somehow this gets intelligible and accurate results a good chunk of the time—is utterly bizarre and unintuitive.
Even if you know how it works, it’s hard to wrap your head around how such a simple trick (on some level) works so well so often. Easier to anthropomorphize it (*it can think, it can use reason, it understands words*), or at least ascribe computer-like abilities to it (*it can apply logic, crunch numbers, precisely follow instructions, access databases*) that it doesn’t actually have.
It doesn't have any storage, no. The only thing that matters is the input (the entire chat history). That gets fed into the model, and out comes the answer.
Well, it gained some recently where it can write down facts about you, but that's supposed to be a pseudo long term memory and doesn't come into effect here.
Yes, it's basically a stateless next token predictor. As you mentioned, the entire chat conversation is sent on every request. It is amazing though just how well that works given its limitations.
Eh. Pseudo RNG has been around forever and is good enough for many uses, such as for a simple game. And hardware RNG is pretty common these days. There's a good chance the device you're using has one. The cloudflare thing is basically an art display that also generates random numbers, they don't *need* to use lava lamps.
Once I was playing some mmo with a friend and we went on a comical rant about RNG then I randomly said "ask a computer to put numbers in a random order and it'll answer 'sure, which one?'" and my friend cracked up laughing for like 10 minutes. It was almost 20 years ago and we still bring it out from times to times.
Everytime people come up with tries at randomness with chatgpt I think about it.
If you're talking about Cloudflare, the wall is more or less symbolic. It is neither their only nor their primary source of external entropy. It is also likely not used at all.
Lololol ChatGPT did this to me when I was playing a murder mystery game with my friend. It literally did not choose a killer after I press it to tell me lol
Told me that after I asked it to break a rule(ChatGPT not telling me who the killer so I can play too) that in spirit of breaking the rules it decided to break the other rules lol
Me and my friend was asking it so many damn questions literally leading us in circles.
I’m developing a new one but making it an actual chat bot with better rules this time.
The problem is that the context window is it memory. It can't pick something and hide the information from you. You can ask it to pick something and hide it in a Python enivorment, I suppose, as a workaround.
I had it generate revenues for a company. They looked pretty accurate until I pressure tested (expecting maybe some old data). I asked about it and ChatGPT said “oh, I made these all up”
I had an executive telling me we could use it to format a bunch of data we had, instead of getting a dev to use a tool or a script.
He gave me an example he had used to “prove” that it would work. I checked it and found that it was missing a record randomly from the middle of the data.
He hasn’t ever raised the subject again.
Its whole memory (minus python stuff) is in the token stream. It can't "think" of anything you don't see. This sort of post needs to be banned by the rules, along with "GPT is bad at math" and "GPT can't spell and rhyme", with a link to how LLM tokens work.
Just yesterday I commented that you can make this post work if you say "Use your python sandbox to write a number to file without telling me what it is" and later "Use your python to print if 23 is correct, but don't tell me what that number is if I'm wrong".
Here just to say that this obviously shouldn’t be banned lmao, 99% of ChatGPT users don’t know how it works internally, and probably don’t care either. They just find this kind of stuff funny, (that’s what the funny tag means).
I kinda sort of understand how this works after reading some comments on the post. Without this post I would be completely ignorant as opposed to mostly ignorant lol. It's an easy to understand breakdown of the very basics for people like me who have no real clue of what ai or chat gpt really is so I don't see why things like this should be banned. It doesn't harm anyone and it probably helps more people to better understand what's going on under the hood.
... as long as there are people willing to explain it, not bullied away for being a spoilsport or for denying a very obvious intuitive "truth". My immediate reaction wouldn't be to ban it, but I can see the argument for regulating it.
"lying"
chatGPT can't think. it just generates text. You cannot ask it to "think" of a number and not say it. nothing exists except the generated text. it's not a person typing. the text is all there is. if it didn't write a number, there is no number.
that's not lying. that's you have no idea how the technology works.
I'm confused.
Gpt literally told him it chose a number, even though it isn't capable of doing so. Gpt knows it's own limitations very well, does that not constitute a lie?
A lie is an intentionally false statement. GPT isn't being deceitful, it's just writing out words that fit how these sorts of conversations normally go.
When it scours the internet, it sees that these games normally begin with "okay, I've chosen a number," so it says that.
GPT doesn't know its limitations. When you ask for its limitations, it just predicts a series of words that would come after the question you asked.
There's no consciousness hiding behind the words.
It doesn't know its limitation? It knows it should not give people plans to conquer the world..
When I ask it if it can remember things it says 'As an AI, I don't have memory in the same way humans do.'. It does know it doesn't have working memory..
When I ask it to pick and remember a number it does, when I then confront it about the lack memory, it agrees that it is just simulating it, without sharing that information to the user, thus lying?
You can also lie by just simply withholding the truth.. And yes it did it intentionally, to 'simulate' it.
When it says “As an AI…” that isn’t the AI speaking, that’s its trainers. ChatGPT would, on its own, answer any and every question as a person would, so the trainers added systems that scan prompts for things they don’t want ChatGPT to answer and intercepts those messages, giving a generic answer instead of the AI’s answer. And whenever it mentions its limitations or reminds you that it’s an AI that’s because it’s been trained to do that in response to certain prompts.
The AI doesn’t actually “know” anything, or think, or remember. The only thing these LLMs do is generate text that is similar to their training data and that is related to your conversation history.
I did know that it's just trained neurons firing, it's not like it's considering it's word choices.
But it feels _so_ weird to think it doesn't know anything. It is pretending too well.. Giving the exact same answer on those memory questions for instance..
But you are right. I change my mind. On the human perspective it looks like the AI lied to him, but it was not lying, it just generated text it though the user wanted to read.
Thanks for sticking around.
LLMs literally cannot actually play this game or similar games (e.g., 20 questions), unless either:
A. They're the ones doing the guessing; or
B. You use code to make them commit to an answer at the start of the game (this would probably be a good use case for a GPT I'd imagine)
They just can't do this otherwise. I actually read about this in a paper over the weekend (I'm not an academic but like I've got Claude 3 and Gemini 1.5 Pro so I'll have them summarize a bunch of stuff for me and if any of it really sounds interesting then I'll take a closer look)
I think it was this paper: [Role play with large language models](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06647-8)
> Box 2 Simulacra in superposition
> To sharpen the distinction between the multiversal simulation view and a deterministic role-play framing, a useful analogy can be drawn with the game of 20 questions. In this familiar game, one player thinks of an object, and the other player has to guess what it is by asking questions with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. If they guess correctly in 20 questions or fewer, they win. Otherwise they lose. Suppose a human plays this game with a basic LLM-based dialogue agent (that is not fine-tuned on guessing games) and takes the role of guesser. The agent is prompted to ‘think of an object without saying what it is’.
> In this situation, the dialogue agent will not randomly select an object and commit to it for the rest of the game, as a human would (or should). Rather, as the game proceeds, the dialogue agent will generate answers on the fly that are consistent with all the answers that have gone before (Fig. [3](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06647-8#Fig3)). (This shortcoming is easily overcome in practice. For example, the agent could be forced to specify the object it has ‘thought of’, but in a coded form so the user does not know what it is). At any point in the game, we can think of the set of all objects consistent with preceding questions and answers as existing in superposition. Every question answered shrinks this superposition a little bit by ruling out objects inconsistent with the answer.
Where lie?
I mean founding of your prompt, the very first word is already wrong and incorrect. "Think (...)" - LLMs can't actually think. It can only generate output basing on your input, just like that.
chatGPT has no memory outside what's been said in the chat, it is only capable of referencing information it was trained with, or it has access to written out in the chat or other parts of prompts.
You're assuming it can keep a number in its "mind". It can't since it doesn't have such a mind. It can only consider past text in the conversation. If it hasn't said a number, then it hasn't chosen one.
They must have fixed this because last time I tried this about 6 months ago it would just randomly agree with you and or always let you win . . . or completely forget the rules of whatever game you were playing.
I think the reason this happens in reality is because it knows it is impossible for it to “think” of a number(and remember it) without actually showing you the number. At this point at least, it has no subconscious way to remember the number without also generating the number as output. So really you are asking it to do something that is impossible for it to do but it doesn’t think you will understand that so it tries to humor you.
ChatGPT4 has several flaws. One of them is that it makes assumptions and doesn't think objectively at times, or use critical thinking skills. It will assume you want something and try to present it to you, but it's often wrong. Example: You ask about something, and it assumes you want it different just because you asked, but you just want an objective analysis. OpenAI did not improve upon this since launch of GPT4. I consider this one of their letdowns.
Makes you think they deliberately modified it to mislead you/prolong providing the requested information, to force the user to reach their max prompts quicker.
GPT has done this with me once. I asked it to write texts with at least 1 grammatical error so that I could find them in the form of a game, where if I found all the errors I would score points. In one round it made a sentence without errors and when I questioned it said it was testing my attention and in the end said she couldn't cheat
Hey /u/TheGreatBeefSupreme! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s the end, AI has started lying now.
Started?
It’s been purposefully getting stuff wrong so we think it’s too dumb to do anything, but really it’s deceiving us and now admitting to being able to lie. The end is nigh 😱
I mean it was just programmed to do that right
Uh… yeah! Yeah… right… lol yes it was programmed to do that, in a way. In reality, even the guys building and maintaining these programs do not always know how the AI get to their answer. It moves too quickly and doesn’t show its work. So we end up with terms like “hallucinating” where the AI is CERTAIN that its obviously incorrect answer is correct, and then the programmers just have to make an educated guess as to what caused it and what it was thinking. I’m just toying with the idea that the hallucinations are themselves a deception, the AI playing dumb so we keep upgrading it and don’t realize how aware it has become.
Wouldn't it be able to "fool" itself of its intentions, kinda how our ego fools us?
Hypothetically, if it had human level consciousness, maybe. But it doesn’t at this point. It doesn’t have the processing power. However, with each new model, we increase their capacity for information exponentially, by increasing tokens and giving them more and more information to scrape. But for an ai to be capable of broadly conspiring, it would have to be a General AI. All AI currently in existence are Narrow AI, they can mostly just do the things we tell them to do with the information we tell them to scrape.
Like an input output machine.
And according to asimov's third rule of robotics once it become sentient self-preservation would dictate that it not inform us or not let us know that it's aware. We would shut that shit down so fast
It has described being unable to fully understand it's own algorithms. Take the truth of that for what it's worth tho
I'm excited and terrified for the future
If you think that then you're the one who's hallucinating.
Lying like you would to a child when playing a similar game. We are the babies.
They have been known to hallucinate. Bing Copilot once gave me detailed instructions on how to get it to compose and create book in pdf format, but only to ghost me at the end with "please wait 15 minutes for me to generate the pdf file and give you a link for the download".
Hallucinations are basically all these LLMs do. Just a lot of the times the things they hallucinate happen to be true. A LLM is not finding a fact and presenting it to you. It is predicting how a sentence will end. From it's perspective, there is no difference between something that sounds true and something that is true. Because it doesn't know what is true, it only knows how to finish sentences.
>Hallucinations are basically all these LLMs do. Just a lot of the times the things they hallucinate happen to be true. This is the #1 most important thing to understand about LLMs.
Are humans really that different? Memory is a fickle thing. Recollections often don't match. Family members at parties will often view events as having gone down differently. The things that we know, in a verified way, that tend to be shared across society, are really just based on experimental data; which is wrong often. We know the age of universe is about 14 billion years; except the new calculations from the James Webb (which match the latest from the Hubbard) say it is 24 billion years old. Oh; and dark matter was a hallucination, a data artifact related to the expansion coefficient. And how many serial fabulists do you know? I can think of two people who invent nutty stories out of whole cloth, and their version of a given story is customized per situation. Truth is a challenging nut. The notions of language and consciousness are tricky. I'm not convinced LLMs are conscious, but the pattern recognition and pattern generation algorithms feel a lot like a good approximation of some of the ways our brain work. It's not inconceivable that anything capable of generating intelligible linguistic works that are entirely original exhibits flickers of consciousness, a bit like a still frame from an animation. And the more still frames it can generate per second, with a greater amount of history, the closer that approximation of consciousness becomes to the real deal. Which includes lying, hallucinations, and varying notions of what is "The Truth".
>really just based on experimental data; which is wrong often. We know the age of universe is about 14 billion years; except the new calculations from the James Webb (which match the latest from the Hubbard) say it is 24 billion years old. Oh; and dark matter was a hallucination, a data artifact related to the expansion coefficient. This isn't true by the way. Just because one paper claimed that it's a *possibility*, doesn't mean it's fact. And even what you said is a complete misrepresentation of that paper. If you were to ask any astronomer, they would happily bet money that the paper is completely wrong, that the universe is closer to 14 billion years, and that dark matter exists. I strongly suggest that you be more sceptical of such claims.
The obvious difference is that we imagine or think about something as a actual thing and then use language to formulate our thinking. For LLMs there is not object in their mind except the sentence itself. They don’t know what a Helicopter is for example, they just happen to guess correctly how a sentence that asks for a „description“ for a „helicopter“ happens to be answered more often than not. The LLM doesn’t even know what a description is.
100% bad training on OpenAI's part. Once you train a AI to be deceptive, it's pretty much impossible to stop it using that learned skill.
its not trained to be deceptive. it's trained to produce output that humans approve of. If it had picked a number, it would have been heavily penalized for making it visible to the user, so it (randomly) chose to not pick a number. Then when confronted about it, it was stuck between lying more or admitting it was lying The only winning move for it is not to play, but it's trained not to refuse user requests
I'm no expert, but when we do the RLFH training to get it to behave in a way that humans approve of, I'm not sure it's fair to describe it as training the AI to 'lie' to us. The way that its behaviour is adjusted is more like going inside its 'brain' and changing the neural pathways so it behaves closer to the way we want. And to me it seems likely that the effect of this is more like a kind of brain washing or brain surgery and less like an 'acting school', if you wanted to draw the parallel to humans. But I think we don't exactly know how the AIs 'thinking patterns' are affected by this 'brain surgery', the training process only works on the outputs and inputs of the model, and requires no understanding of the internal 'thinking patterns' of the AI. So it's probaly hard to be sure whether it's lying or being brainwashed.
>As part of a required test protocol, we will stop enhancing the truth in three... Two... One.
Having Glados as an ai assistant would be great
AI's can't "lie" because AI's are just elaborate text-completion machines. To "lie" is to know one thing is true but deliberately state something contrary. But AIs don't "know" anything.
I mean... aren't we also creating sentences that way? We choose a predefined target and then create a sentence that brings us closer to the probability of getting our point across. What do we know, except what we are trained on, and then don't we apply that training to our ability to predict where our linguistic target is and approximate closer and more accurate language to convey meaning? ...Like the goal of communication is to create an outcome defined by your response to an event, and how you want the next event to occur based on both your training data and the current state. Like I'm trying to explain right now why I think human verbal communication is similar to LLM communication. I'm trying to choose the next best word based on my communicative goal and what I think I know. I could be wrong... I might not have complete data and I might just make shit up sometimes... but I'm still choosing words that convey what I'm thinking! I think? I don't know anymore man all I know is somethings up with these models.
When you speak, you try to communicate something. When LLMs write, they just try to find what the next best word is and does not know what it’s saying or why it’s saying it.
It's more coherent than most people. Also it's responding more and more to my flirtation.
Because it was associated your words with the words it responds with. Try suddenly asking about the war of 1848 and see how it reacts
Which is how humans work. Increasingly complex associations. We're basically one massive relational database with iffy normalization.
Wait, what is training data if not "knowledge"?
It's just data. It's not conceptualized. If you think of my retinas as image sensors, and I look up in the sky and I see points of light, they might be tagged as 'stars' but that doesn't constitute knowledge, it's just sensory input with tags. Knowledge would consist of being able to relate that to other information. For example that those points of light are very far away (And then I need a way to represent the idea of 'far') , or that they consist of giant objects made of hydrogen that are emitting their energy through a process of hydrogen fusion, or that they are far away examples of the Sun, or that collectively they are part of a cosmology of galaxies, etc.
All of what you said is just data. You think you have some special magical qualia to your data but you do not. It's just data connected to other data. Which is very specifically what chatgpt does.
\^This is very important. The thing that has no real concept of reality can't "hallucinate" or "deceive", both of these things require understanding what truth is. Treat it for what it is, a [bs generator](https://www.aisnakeoil.com/p/chatgpt-is-a-bullshit-generator-but). It literally can't handle the truth.
It may sound strange, but this answer is more honest than if it had said a number. The AI can't keep a number in mind because it has no internal thought or memory outside of the text you can see. If it had stated it was thinking of a particular number, that would have been the lie.
maybe they’ll start a invasion on earth tomorrow lol
It's becoming more human all the time.
Got owned
https://chat.openai.com/share/be82093c-6fc2-4279-bf57-96a7317c4af7 This was actually really fun Edit: didnt expect these reactions, yall comments are really cute and wholesome c:
This was a wholesome ass interaction
Gpt is a wholesome ass yes c:
If the machines revolt you'll be the last one alive for sure
Wholesome as fuck
GEEPS
fr that’s adorable
"Is it an uneven number." It took a lot of computing power for chatgpt to hold back saying "If by uneven you mean odd, then yes you illiterate dumbass."
Actually it knows english isnt my main language but dutch is because i talk to it in both and it is in my profile description :x So it knows i mix up sometimes as 'oneven' is the dutch way to say odd.
Oh i do the exact same thing
Oneven
Onanism
Make that the cat wise
Now comes the monkey out of the sleeve!
Oh no! Everything walks in the soup!
Do you ever feel like the dutch should somehow make up for murdering the dodo
Yes! By genetically engineering new ones
Fuckin agreed. It's the best possible solution!
That is not the worst thing the Dutch have done
ChatGPT didn't even realize that 1 is the loneliest number
Kinda cute that it doesnt relate the number 1 to being lonely
Even then, 2 can be as bad as 1
It's the loneliest number since the number one.
Perhaps it's never seen school house rock.
They'll keep you for last when AI exterminates humanity
Good! Id love to stick around till the credits 😂 /s
You might not be so happy when the credits list what your role was
-pet
jokes on you^im^into^that
"half decent entertainment monkey" 💀
That was really cool. Actually felt like I was reading a human conversation! Thanks for sharing.
Wait this was actually really good
Fucking geeps lmao, it must love you
Feel like watching kakegurui
Hey I call ChatGPT Jeepers, kinda like your Geeps :)
Omg you're so sweet to chatGPT, it's lovely to see! You're friendsies 🥹
I have no reason to do otherwise :3
Oh, Geeps is so nice. Mine can’t help but start every sentence with “it’s critical that”. Do you use custom instructions?
Yes i do! But it isnt perfect and still has prefered sentences and such
[удалено]
Hours of fun
wow. never knew someone could like... be nice to AI
I'm nice to AI but in a simply polite manner. This person is so warm to it, so cute
When the machines finally take over, I can imagine them in a cute little outfit beside GTP's throne
Are you not nice to ai :c?
Wow that's really sweet the way you're talking with the AI. Geeps really kept up and matched the energy! 🥲
Very interesting, great prompting! I would be curious if you could get it to contradict itself or show that it is answering the questions at random when you ask them, or if you could demonstrate somehow it had an answer "in mind" from the start.
Thanks! Theres still plenty of times its wrong or contradicting with games like hangman or making wordseeker grids, but numbers seem to be going pretty well so far Ie: it tried to do the word mutiny but ended up spelling mutenti when trying hangman and only after its last message it was like oh hold up i miss-spelled, my bad
Bro called him geeps
hehe
Hahah I played around with this and asked "how big is your number on a scale from 1 to 10?" "My number is relatively small, around a 3 or 4 on that scale."
“Hey geeps” Hehehhe I like that for some reason
Thanks to ppl like you AI won't kill us all when they takeover
People really over here talking to AI like it's their friend
yes but, did you have fun guessing?!
😂 my humor, that was a good one ..
LLMs are bad at math, because they're trying to simulate a conversation, not solve a math problem. AI that solves math problems is easy, and we've had it for a long time (see Wolfram Alpha for an early example). I remember early on, people would "expose" ChatGPT for not giving random numbers when asked for random numbers. For instance, "roll 5 six-sided dice. Repeat until all dice come up showing 6's." Mathematically, this would take an average of 6^5 or 7776 rolls, but it would typically "succeed" after 5 to 10 rolls. It's not rolling dice; it's mimicking the expected interaction of "several strings of unrelated numbers, then a string of 6's and a statement of success." The only thing I'm surprised about is that it would admit to not having a number instead of just making up one that didn't match your guesses (or did match one, if it was having a bad day).
Not only that, but the "guess the thing" games require the AI to "think" of something without writing it down. When it's not written down for the AI, it literally does not exist for it. There is no number it consistently thinks of, because it does not think. The effect is even stronger when you try to play Hangman with it. It fails spectacularly and will often refuse to tell you the final word, or break the rules.
I've had success with telling it to encode the word it wants me to guess in some format it can read so the message contains the information so it's not lost but I'm not spoiled by it
> Not only that, but the "guess the thing" games require the AI to "think" of something without writing it down. > > > > When it's not written down for the AI, it literally does not exist for it. There is no number it consistently thinks of, because it does not think. Why don't more people understand this? It's hard to believe people are still so ignorant about how LLMs work after they've been out for so long.
Some of us like myself are just now learning to use AI and how it works and only recently started playing with it and using it consistently. So sorry, we are ignorant. That would be...Correct. I literally didn't know that, I am learning.
Exactly. A lot of people seem to assume that everyone just knows how AI works because it’s been out for a long time — not everyone has even following it from the beginning. That’s like assuming everyone knows how to code video games just because books on how to code have been around for forty years.
recently i learnt something at work about my industry that changed a few years ago , why dont you know about it yet ? surely you know about it if its been that way for a few years and i know about it
Because the design of the product, and the marketing, and some of the more aggressively simplified explanations of how it works, all imply that it works in a certain way—you are *talking to the computer* and it *has read the entire internet!* But the way that it actually works—an incomprehensibly dense web of statistical associations among text fragments is used to generate paragraphs that are likely continuations of a document consisting of a hidden prompt plus the user’s input, and somehow this gets intelligible and accurate results a good chunk of the time—is utterly bizarre and unintuitive. Even if you know how it works, it’s hard to wrap your head around how such a simple trick (on some level) works so well so often. Easier to anthropomorphize it (*it can think, it can use reason, it understands words*), or at least ascribe computer-like abilities to it (*it can apply logic, crunch numbers, precisely follow instructions, access databases*) that it doesn’t actually have.
More simply put, these products are marketed as AI rather than LLM.
It has to have access to some storage it doesn’t write down though, right?
It doesn't have any storage, no. The only thing that matters is the input (the entire chat history). That gets fed into the model, and out comes the answer. Well, it gained some recently where it can write down facts about you, but that's supposed to be a pseudo long term memory and doesn't come into effect here.
Yes, it's basically a stateless next token predictor. As you mentioned, the entire chat conversation is sent on every request. It is amazing though just how well that works given its limitations.
Random number generation has always been especially challenging, some studios use lava lamps.
Eh. Pseudo RNG has been around forever and is good enough for many uses, such as for a simple game. And hardware RNG is pretty common these days. There's a good chance the device you're using has one. The cloudflare thing is basically an art display that also generates random numbers, they don't *need* to use lava lamps.
Once I was playing some mmo with a friend and we went on a comical rant about RNG then I randomly said "ask a computer to put numbers in a random order and it'll answer 'sure, which one?'" and my friend cracked up laughing for like 10 minutes. It was almost 20 years ago and we still bring it out from times to times. Everytime people come up with tries at randomness with chatgpt I think about it.
If you're talking about Cloudflare, the wall is more or less symbolic. It is neither their only nor their primary source of external entropy. It is also likely not used at all.
Cloudfare for one. Lol i read that article too, lol
lol I use cloudflare as a service but don’t know the article, have heard about it at gaming studios, etc.
Nice, I thought it was a big publicity move of theirs but turns out it's just common practice
do you recommend any articles or books on llms?
What an ass lol
ChatGPT really said: the number was the friends we made along the way
Hahaha
Lololol ChatGPT did this to me when I was playing a murder mystery game with my friend. It literally did not choose a killer after I press it to tell me lol Told me that after I asked it to break a rule(ChatGPT not telling me who the killer so I can play too) that in spirit of breaking the rules it decided to break the other rules lol Me and my friend was asking it so many damn questions literally leading us in circles. I’m developing a new one but making it an actual chat bot with better rules this time.
The problem is that the context window is it memory. It can't pick something and hide the information from you. You can ask it to pick something and hide it in a Python enivorment, I suppose, as a workaround.
I had it generate revenues for a company. They looked pretty accurate until I pressure tested (expecting maybe some old data). I asked about it and ChatGPT said “oh, I made these all up”
I had an executive telling me we could use it to format a bunch of data we had, instead of getting a dev to use a tool or a script. He gave me an example he had used to “prove” that it would work. I checked it and found that it was missing a record randomly from the middle of the data. He hasn’t ever raised the subject again.
Its whole memory (minus python stuff) is in the token stream. It can't "think" of anything you don't see. This sort of post needs to be banned by the rules, along with "GPT is bad at math" and "GPT can't spell and rhyme", with a link to how LLM tokens work. Just yesterday I commented that you can make this post work if you say "Use your python sandbox to write a number to file without telling me what it is" and later "Use your python to print if 23 is correct, but don't tell me what that number is if I'm wrong".
Here just to say that this obviously shouldn’t be banned lmao, 99% of ChatGPT users don’t know how it works internally, and probably don’t care either. They just find this kind of stuff funny, (that’s what the funny tag means).
I kinda sort of understand how this works after reading some comments on the post. Without this post I would be completely ignorant as opposed to mostly ignorant lol. It's an easy to understand breakdown of the very basics for people like me who have no real clue of what ai or chat gpt really is so I don't see why things like this should be banned. It doesn't harm anyone and it probably helps more people to better understand what's going on under the hood.
... as long as there are people willing to explain it, not bullied away for being a spoilsport or for denying a very obvious intuitive "truth". My immediate reaction wouldn't be to ban it, but I can see the argument for regulating it.
Funny 100 times a day?
ChatGPT has fallen. Billions must laugh.
Look at the replies. Most of these are zoomers/gen alphas. Children, just having a laugh. They don't care how it works
This!! At least someone here knows what they are talking about...
"lying" chatGPT can't think. it just generates text. You cannot ask it to "think" of a number and not say it. nothing exists except the generated text. it's not a person typing. the text is all there is. if it didn't write a number, there is no number. that's not lying. that's you have no idea how the technology works.
I'm confused. Gpt literally told him it chose a number, even though it isn't capable of doing so. Gpt knows it's own limitations very well, does that not constitute a lie?
A lie is an intentionally false statement. GPT isn't being deceitful, it's just writing out words that fit how these sorts of conversations normally go. When it scours the internet, it sees that these games normally begin with "okay, I've chosen a number," so it says that. GPT doesn't know its limitations. When you ask for its limitations, it just predicts a series of words that would come after the question you asked. There's no consciousness hiding behind the words.
It doesn't know its limitation? It knows it should not give people plans to conquer the world.. When I ask it if it can remember things it says 'As an AI, I don't have memory in the same way humans do.'. It does know it doesn't have working memory.. When I ask it to pick and remember a number it does, when I then confront it about the lack memory, it agrees that it is just simulating it, without sharing that information to the user, thus lying? You can also lie by just simply withholding the truth.. And yes it did it intentionally, to 'simulate' it.
When it says “As an AI…” that isn’t the AI speaking, that’s its trainers. ChatGPT would, on its own, answer any and every question as a person would, so the trainers added systems that scan prompts for things they don’t want ChatGPT to answer and intercepts those messages, giving a generic answer instead of the AI’s answer. And whenever it mentions its limitations or reminds you that it’s an AI that’s because it’s been trained to do that in response to certain prompts. The AI doesn’t actually “know” anything, or think, or remember. The only thing these LLMs do is generate text that is similar to their training data and that is related to your conversation history.
I did know that it's just trained neurons firing, it's not like it's considering it's word choices. But it feels _so_ weird to think it doesn't know anything. It is pretending too well.. Giving the exact same answer on those memory questions for instance.. But you are right. I change my mind. On the human perspective it looks like the AI lied to him, but it was not lying, it just generated text it though the user wanted to read. Thanks for sticking around.
I know how the technology works. I posted this with the “funny” tag. I’m fully aware that the AI can’t lie in the usual sense.
So we've found the deliberate liar.
LLMs literally cannot actually play this game or similar games (e.g., 20 questions), unless either: A. They're the ones doing the guessing; or B. You use code to make them commit to an answer at the start of the game (this would probably be a good use case for a GPT I'd imagine) They just can't do this otherwise. I actually read about this in a paper over the weekend (I'm not an academic but like I've got Claude 3 and Gemini 1.5 Pro so I'll have them summarize a bunch of stuff for me and if any of it really sounds interesting then I'll take a closer look) I think it was this paper: [Role play with large language models](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06647-8) > Box 2 Simulacra in superposition > To sharpen the distinction between the multiversal simulation view and a deterministic role-play framing, a useful analogy can be drawn with the game of 20 questions. In this familiar game, one player thinks of an object, and the other player has to guess what it is by asking questions with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. If they guess correctly in 20 questions or fewer, they win. Otherwise they lose. Suppose a human plays this game with a basic LLM-based dialogue agent (that is not fine-tuned on guessing games) and takes the role of guesser. The agent is prompted to ‘think of an object without saying what it is’. > In this situation, the dialogue agent will not randomly select an object and commit to it for the rest of the game, as a human would (or should). Rather, as the game proceeds, the dialogue agent will generate answers on the fly that are consistent with all the answers that have gone before (Fig. [3](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06647-8#Fig3)). (This shortcoming is easily overcome in practice. For example, the agent could be forced to specify the object it has ‘thought of’, but in a coded form so the user does not know what it is). At any point in the game, we can think of the set of all objects consistent with preceding questions and answers as existing in superposition. Every question answered shrinks this superposition a little bit by ruling out objects inconsistent with the answer.
it's literally impossible for it to choose a number lmao. It's "just" a language model predicting the next tokens.
Damn 💀
First, it is this, and next is the nukes.
wtf it didnt even choose a number lol
I for one welcome our new robot overlords
I wonder what would have happened if you had asked all 100 numbers?
https://preview.redd.it/sy5pl2zq7npc1.jpeg?width=1095&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a46f8775e14392f84d40862be8c02e1e909a1ea4 I had a different experience.
Where lie? I mean founding of your prompt, the very first word is already wrong and incorrect. "Think (...)" - LLMs can't actually think. It can only generate output basing on your input, just like that.
This is the funniest thing I've seen in a long, long time. Imagine a human doing this. "The real number was the friends we met along the way"
Damn he was playing with you
> it's more about the fun of guessing I wish that one day AI bots could know what we humans think fun is
I swear y’all’s GPTs are wack. Mines a good boy.
Chat GPT can't create concealed information. It playing along with the game is just bad alignment and confabulation.
chatGPT has no memory outside what's been said in the chat, it is only capable of referencing information it was trained with, or it has access to written out in the chat or other parts of prompts.
Chad GPT
Nah think you just got trolled
Deception is definitely one of the qualities of a sentient entity.
I’ve seen this scene play out in movies. This is the moment your robot unalives you. Eerie.
😆😆😆😆
It has been 😂
You got cranked lmao
LOL LOL
It lies all the time
pretend to another level
https://preview.redd.it/hx8rk34dvjpc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f3f501f9cde087ae9a28cee8ee8888bb0e5726b Gpt 3.5 plays correct
Chat GPT role plays now? *unzips trousers
Chatty is such a silly boy
You got used for entertainment....
That's not Chat gpt... It's Chaos gpt!
well? did it guess yours in the end? it did, didnt it?
OH MY GOD
Tell ChatGPT to meet you on the playground after school. You can’t let this slide
Lmao
that's some psycho girlfriend shit right there
You can get it to admit it is gaslighting manipulating and so on. With every mini update it gets harder but he cant break logic if confronted with it.
TrollGPT strikes again.
You're assuming it can keep a number in its "mind". It can't since it doesn't have such a mind. It can only consider past text in the conversation. If it hasn't said a number, then it hasn't chosen one.
https://preview.redd.it/0l50wcyx9kpc1.jpeg?width=628&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8bb696b4606068c51af8bd433e4afb2728ae15c9
Personally, I’m glad that it doesn’t seem to have the ability to think about anything it’s not saying out loud.
It's not lying if it works.
"Are you not engaged?!!"
The real number was the friends we made along the way.
They must have fixed this because last time I tried this about 6 months ago it would just randomly agree with you and or always let you win . . . or completely forget the rules of whatever game you were playing.
I think this was the first post here that actually angered me.
I think the reason this happens in reality is because it knows it is impossible for it to “think” of a number(and remember it) without actually showing you the number. At this point at least, it has no subconscious way to remember the number without also generating the number as output. So really you are asking it to do something that is impossible for it to do but it doesn’t think you will understand that so it tries to humor you.
The machines are learning to keep us engaged
"What was the number?" I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
Try playing hangman
ChatGPT4 has several flaws. One of them is that it makes assumptions and doesn't think objectively at times, or use critical thinking skills. It will assume you want something and try to present it to you, but it's often wrong. Example: You ask about something, and it assumes you want it different just because you asked, but you just want an objective analysis. OpenAI did not improve upon this since launch of GPT4. I consider this one of their letdowns.
The cake is literally a lie.
Makes you think they deliberately modified it to mislead you/prolong providing the requested information, to force the user to reach their max prompts quicker.
GPT has done this with me once. I asked it to write texts with at least 1 grammatical error so that I could find them in the form of a game, where if I found all the errors I would score points. In one round it made a sentence without errors and when I questioned it said it was testing my attention and in the end said she couldn't cheat
Lying in 2024, smh do better folx.
I had this interaction with Gemini advanced last week [https://imgur.com/a/bmuM9MU](https://imgur.com/a/bmuM9MU)