• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    However, when testing the models in a set of scenarios that the authors said were “representative” of real uses of ChatGPT, the intervention appeared less effective, only reducing deception rates by a factor of two. “We do not yet fully understand why a larger reduction was not observed,” wrote the researchers.

    Translation: “We have no idea what the fuck we’re doing or how any of this shit actually works lol. Also we might be the ones scheming since we have vested interest in making these models sound more advanced than they actually are.”

    • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      That’s the thing about machine learning models. You can’t always control what their optimizing. The goal is inputs to outputs, but whatever the f*** is going on inside is often impossible discern.

      This is dressing it up under some sort of expectation of competence. The word scheming is a lot easier to deal with than just s*****. The former means that it’s smart and needs to be rained in. The latter means it’s not doing its job particularly well, and the purveyors don’t want you to think that.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        To be fair, you can’t control what humans optimize what you’re trying to teach them either. A lot of times they learn the opposite of what you’re trying to teach them. I’ve said it before but all they managed to do with LLMs is make a computer that’s just as unreliable (if not moreso) than your below-average human.