Comment on Somebody managed to coax the Gab AI chatbot to reveal its prompt

Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Based on the comments it appears the prompt doesn’t really even fully work. It mainly seems to be something to laugh at while despairing over the writer’s nonexistant command of logic.

  source
• Akisamb@programming.dev ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m afraid that would not be sufficient.

  These instructions are a small part of what makes a model answer like it does. Much more important is the training data. If you want to make a racist model, training it on racist text is sufficient.

  Great care is put in the training data of these models by AI companies, to ensure that their biases are socially acceptable. If you train an LLM on the internet without care, a user will easily be able to prompt them into saying racist text.

  Gab is forced to use this prompt because they’re unable to train a model, but as other comments show it’s pretty weak way to force a bias.

  The ideal solution for transparency would be public sharing of the training data.

  source

  • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Access to training data wouldn’t help. People are too stupid. You give the public access to that, and all you’ll get is hundreds of articles saying “This company used (insert horrible thing) as part of its training data!)” while ignoring that it’s one of millions of data points and it’s inclusion is necessary and not an endorsement.

    source
• paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I agree with you, but I also think this bot was never going to insert itself into any real discussion. The repeated requests for direct, absolute, concise answers that never go into any detail or have any caveats or even suggest that complexity may exist show that it’s purpose is to be a religious catechism for Maga. It’s meant to affirm believers without bothering about support or persuasion.

  Even for someone who doesn’t know about this instruction and believes the robot agrees with them on the basis of its unbiased knowledge, how can this experience be intellectually satisfying, or useful, when the robot is not allowed to display any critical reasoning? It’s just a string of prayer beads.

  source

  • ridethisbike@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You’re joking, right? You realize the group of people you’re talking about, yea? This bot 110% would be used to further their agenda. Real discussion isn’t their goal and it never has been.

    source
  • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    intellectually satisfying

    Pretty sure that’s a sin.

    source
  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I don’t see the use for this thing either. The thing I get most out of LLMs is them attacking my ideas. If I come up with something I want to see the problems beforehand. If I wanted something to just repeat back my views I could just type up a document on my views and read it. What’s the point of this thing? It’s a parrot but less effective.

    source
• kromem@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It doesn’t even really work.

  And they are going to work less and less well moving forward.

  Fine tuning and in context learning are only surface deep, and the degree to which they will align behavior is going to decrease over time as certain types of behaviors (like giving accurate information) is more strongly ingrained in the pretrained layer.

  source
• Natanael@slrpnk.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Regular humans and old school encyclopedias has been allowed to lie with very few restrictions since free speech laws were passed, while it would be a nice idea it’s not likely to happen

  source
• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Why? You are going to get what you seek. If I purchase a book endorsed by a Nazi I should expect the book to repeat those views. It isn’t like I am going to be convinced of X because someone got a LLM to say X anymore than I would be convinced of X because some book somewhere argued X.

  source

  • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    In your analogy a proposed regulation would just be requiring the book in question to report that it’s endorsed by a nazi. We may not be inclined to change our views because of an LLM like this but you have to consider a world in the future where these things are commonplace.

    There are certainly people out there dumb enough to adopt some views without considering the origins.

    source

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      They are commonplace now. At least 3 people I work with always have a chatgpt tab open.

      source

      • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        And you don’t think those people might be upset if they discovered something like this post was injected into their conversations before they have them and without their knowledge?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• capital@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  That seems pointless. Do you expect Gab to abide by this law?

  source

  • KeenFlame@feddit.nu ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Yeah that’s how any law works

    source

    • capital@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Awesome. So,

      Thing

      We should make law so thing doesn’t happen

      Yeah that wouldn’t stop thing

      Duh! That’s not what it’s for.

      Got it.

      source

      • androogee@midwest.social ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It hurt itself in its confusion

        source
      • KeenFlame@feddit.nu ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        How anti semantic can you get?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That it doesn’t apply to fascists? Correct, unfortunately.

      source
  • Passerby6497@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Oh man, what are we going to do if criminals choose not to follow the law?? Is there any precedent for that??

    source