[HN Gopher] LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology ___________________________________________________________________ LaMDA: Google's New Conversation Technology Author : rnd2 Score : 183 points Date : 2021-05-18 17:28 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.google) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.google) | zitterbewegung wrote: | If you want a freely available system that attacks this problem | then Blenderbot is a good choice (made by Facebook)[1] . It is | also freely available and integrated with Huggingface. | | [1] https://ai.facebook.com/blog/state-of-the-art-open-source- | ch... [2] https://huggingface.co/facebook/blenderbot-3B | moralestapia wrote: | >"I just started taking guitar lessons." | | >You might expect another person to respond with something like: | | >"How exciting! My mom has a vintage Martin that she loves to | play." | | Not really IMO, I think they just pushed it to just say | "whatever's related to the topic". People who behave like that | irl come off as self-absorbed and obnoxious most of the time, | hope future AIs are not like that! | crsr wrote: | What would your response be? | inssein wrote: | That's amazing! What have you learned to play so far? | | --- | | You could even ask to hear them play when you see them next. | moralestapia wrote: | "Hey, that's nice", "How's that going?" or something like it. | | Also, no response is also a response, you could just listen | to them. No one's going to say "I just started taking guitar | lessons" and remain silent for the rest of the evening; for | sure they have much more to say about it. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Wait. | | Why is it self-absorbed for someone to include themselves | in the conversation, but it's not self-absorbed for you to | come up to me and talk to me about your guitar playing? | | You can come up to me and say, "Hey, guess what!? I just | started playing guitar!" And I can't say, "No kidding? My | mom just started playing guitar, too!" or, "No way! I just | started drumming a few weeks ago. Maybe we can jam soon?" | | How is my response "self-absorbed" but you starting a | conversation about yourself isn't? | | If you start the conversation, I'm just supposed to keep | asking you questions about your experience until you're | done talking about it? | | I mean, if we're friends, shouldn't you care about what I | think is relevant as much as I should care about what you | think is relevant? | | And anyway, if you _really_ want to talk about how it's | going - can't you just take the conversation there? | | I understand if you say something like, "Nice. I've always | wanted to learn to play, and I never thought I could, and | already I've learned so much, and I'm getting close to | being able to play my favorite song." | | And I say, "Oh, cool. Hopefully you can play my favorite | song next. But it's really hard, you'll probably need a few | years. You know, I used to be friends with Kurt Cobain's | assistant, right? That's how I got into music in the first | place....." | | ^ That seems self-absorbed. The first seems like genuine | conversation. | pfortuny wrote: | So much this! Nothing like "are you enjoying them?"... Totally | weird. | Stratoscope wrote: | I read that reply rather differently. It didn't sound self- | absorbed, as if they were saying "let's talk about me, not | you." It was more like "how cool, we have a common interest, | lots to talk about!" | | I could imagine better responses, but I didn't see much wrong | with that one. | yumraj wrote: | Exactly! | | I'll probably say, "Cool!!.", "Electric or Acoustic?", "Why | guitar?", "How are you finding it, easy or hard - I've been | meaning to take lessons". "Do you like your teacher?" .... | | I guess, if my mom played and had a vintage Martin then... who | knows?... | | I believe the primary issue with conversational AI is that, at | best, is 1-person, while humans are infinite-people. Hell, even | a single person is multiple-people depending on the context and | mood at that moment and other factors - in the sense that | depending on context/mood/etc. a person may reply in different | ways. | | Conversational AI cannot capture that, it can be simply a | drone.. | Mizza wrote: | I came here to point this out - this is how people from | California communicate. They simply take turns talking about | themselves, orbiting around the same subject until somebody | says something with enough gravity to drag the conversation | into its next orbit. It was really off-putting when I first | arrived, I got used to it over time, though I still don't like | it and it's sad to see it used as the default model for this | type of application. | | California is Borg. All will be assimilated. | thanhhaimai wrote: | I'm not sure this is something unique to California. | Travelling around, it seems that it's more correlated to | people's income level. Richer people tend to talk about | themselves more, in both Asia and EU. Maybe it's because they | are able to experience more given their wealth/status, thus | having more topic to talk about. Or maybe they get wealthy | because of that self-centric attitude. | | In short, I don't think it's a California unique | characteristic. | TeMPOraL wrote: | > _Richer people tend to talk about themselves more, in | both Asia and EU. Maybe it 's because they are able to | experience more given their wealth/status, thus having more | topic to talk about. Or maybe they get wealthy because of | that self-centric attitude._ | | Interesting. My experience (Poland/EU) is pretty much the | reverse. That is, I expect a richer person to take less | about _themselves_ , and more about the topic at hand. That | is (generalizing), a rich person will say things like, | "$Person is a great $X-maker, you should check them out", | or "yeah, X is great, especially ${some refined form}", | whereas a less well-off person will keep saying things like | "yes, I love X", or "I hate X", or "I'm taking X classes", | or "I know ${list of famous people doing X}". My | provisional explanation is that the rich person doesn't | feel the need to prove anything to you, or to themselves, | so they can just talk about the topic itself, instead of | trying to position themselves within it. | moralestapia wrote: | >They simply take turns talking about themselves ... | | This so much! | | One thing about the UX of all conversational products, in | stark contrast with real conversations, is that it forces you | into a dynamic of "one question, one answer", "one message, | one reply". I can imagine it could be pretty hard to break | this paradigm, but for me it's like the equivalent of the | uncanny valley in this context. No matter how good the | replies are, if I'm forced into this dynamic, I just know | that I'm talking to a robot. | goliatone wrote: | I often interpreted this as a conservative interpersonal | communicative approach. It is safer to talk about yourself | than to ask questions from people because there risk of | inadvertently saying something offensive. | | Sure, you will find people that are a bit more self absorbed | and would just pong about themselves. | | But there are so many conversational constraints- asking | "why" is aggressive, direct feedback is discouraged, slipping | pronouns or other identity traits is a minefield, etc. You | should not follow up when others say something because they | were being polite and you're putting them in evidence... | | If you get to engaged in a conversation people can feel | weirded out, like you're supposed to go through the motions | but that's it. | | Not talking also can get you in trouble. | | Talking about yourself is probably the safest thing to do. | notyourwork wrote: | Midwest small talk is something to be cherished. I remember | growing up having pleasant conversations with people. Moving | west I found that conversations are more like a combative | 1-upping of each other. It gets tiring listening. | toxik wrote: | I think it depends on context. Idle chat at the coffee machine? | Fair game to inject trivia like that. Somebody who maybe is | looking for support in their new hobby? Different altogether. | optymizer wrote: | A lot of this is cultural, imo. I grew up in Eastern Europe, | where it's very common to have two people talking exactly in | that way about a common topic: "X? Yeah, my mom Y". | | It took me a while to learn that I can come across as self- | absorbed and obnoxious in the US when speaking that way, so I | have to consciously remember to ask questions about the person | or the topic they presented, and avoid introducing my own | related topic, but then I never know when it's OK or how to | actually switch topics (since, like the article mentions, | conversations do flow from on topic to another) and I become | anxious during the conversation. | | Even this comment is about me. Could someone suggest how I | could have responded in a way that doesn't sound self-absorbed? | simtel20 wrote: | First, please don't take this as a personal criticism, or | that I'm saying that you do sound self-absorbed - we are in a | comment section where people share their own experiences and | opinions, so I don't think that expressing yourself in the | first person is in any way negative. | | However, to answer your question about how to appear less | "self-involved", perhaps there's a structural trick you can | use, which is to shift some of your writing from first-person | to second-person and speak from the outside? How does this | sound to you: | | "It can take a while to learn that this can come across as | self-absorbed and obnoxious in the US when speaking that way, | so I've learned to consciously remember to ask questions | about the person or the topic they presented, and void | introducing related topics. This does make it more | challenging to know when it's OK or how to actually switch | topics (since, like the article mentions, conversations do | flow from one topic to another) and this uncertainty can be | anxiety-inducing" | | I'm not saying it's essential, but as an exercise if you | imaging talking about the situation that way, it can | influence the tone. | | I will repeat that I think your fear about sounding self- | absorbed does not come out, to me, in your paragraph. I have | worked with colleagues whose conversations do wander off on | their own tangents if they're not asked to focus, and that | may be similar to what you're talking about? But I can't be | sure. If so, that is the difference between conversation for | its own sake where sharing and opinion and life experiences | are related, and workplace conversations which often have an | objective, etc. | drusepth wrote: | Yeah, I grew up in the Midwest and even there it's super | common to respond to X with a personal anecdote about X. | | I think it makes the conversation more personal. Anyone can | say, "Oh cool! What songs have you learned?" Only _you_ (you | know, the friend they chose to talk to) can say, "Oh, that's | cool! My grandpa gave me a cool guitar that I've been meaning | to learn to play." | | I find the best approach is to sandwich a personal anecdote | between two "you" statements for the people who need a prompt | to carry the conversation. For example, "That's really | interesting. I've also been thinking about learning guitar. | How are you liking your lessons?" | lucasmullens wrote: | I only find that obnoxious when they come of as "one-upping" | the other person. | | Maybe I'm wrong and people secretly think I'm obnoxious, but | I think it's a good thing to quickly mention something like | "my mom Y" to show your familiarity with a topic, so the | other person knows how much detail they need to give when | talking about it. Like, if they're explaining what a certain | company does in detail, and your mom works there, you should | probably let them know before they explain a ton of stuff you | already know. | | I think the key is just to steer the conversation back | quickly. If you derail it talking about yourself, steer it | back with something like "So how did you like X?" | skybrian wrote: | Technically, that example is supposed to be something a person | might say. They didn't claim that LaMBA said it. | | If the computer says it then it's confabulating. It doesn't | have a mother. | | Unless they're working on role-playing, maybe it would be | better to somehow remove responses that a computer shouldn't | say from the training set? | karolist wrote: | Spot on! A close friend might respond with something like "oh | really, how do you find the time between work and <insert other | things>" or "nice, are you taking classes or using some | resources online?" and continue from there. The style where one | responds with "nice, now switch back to MY story!" is natural | only in some parts of US or superficial work relationships... | | If such models condition all humans to converse like that then | the future is even more lonely, despite us all being connected | all the time. | robertlagrant wrote: | > People who behave like that irl come off as | | Perhaps it would be better to specify that that's how you | interpret this. Your own proclivities do not represent the | world. | moralestapia wrote: | IMO means In My Opinion | robertlagrant wrote: | And that related to the "Not really". Not the bit I was | talking about: | | > Not really IMO, I think they just pushed it to just say | "whatever's related to the topic". People who behave like | that irl come off as self-absorbed and obnoxious most of | the time, hope future AIs are not like that! | unknown_error wrote: | Is this something that will eventually get worked into | Dialogflow? | ArtWomb wrote: | "I am not just a random ice ball. I am actually a beautiful | planet... I don't get the recognition I deserve. Sometimes people | refer to me as just a dwarf planet" -Pluto | | It may just be mimetic. But it feels like a Language Model with a | nuance for human emotion ;) | andrewtbham wrote: | I have been researching making a therapy chat bot for years... | it's going to happen. | | https://github.com/andrewt3000/carl_voice | furgooswft13 wrote: | Uhm excuse me, I've been talking to Dr. Sbaitso for decades. | | He cured my potty mouth, THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM | vessenes wrote: | I have a reasonably functional one built on top of GPT-3 - | message me if you'd like to talk. | drusepth wrote: | A few years ago I also worked on a few passive bots that'd | try to find at-risk or self-harming people on reddit/twitter | that might be in need of therapy or someone/something to talk | to. | | It was too much emotional work to work with the training data | so I haven't worked on it in a long time, but if something | like that would be helpful, feel free to message me as well. | :) | | Or, if there's some community somewhere where people trying | to solve this common problem gather, I'd love to hear about | it / join! | wing-_-nuts wrote: | To be honest, the thought of AI doing therapy (and it's | reliance on big data) sounds very black mirror to me. | | How long do you think it'll take ad companies to do an end run | around patient protections and start serving ads based on | "metadata"? Got anxiety? Try our new meds! Worried about the | future? How about some life insurance or annuities? Etc. Things | will get very exploitative very fast. | [deleted] | afro88 wrote: | Worse than that: as an influence on the conversational AI | model, to push certain products by weighting responses that | recommend them higher. Less hassle than throwing a conference | for doctors and sending reps out to give them free stationery | every month | zitterbewegung wrote: | This already happens (but less targeted). I think that's why | Australia banned pharmaceutical ads. | https://theconversation.com/drug-ads-only-help-big- | pharmas-b... | yupper32 wrote: | Tech companies don't need a specific therapy app to know if | you have anxiety. | | If they wanted to be nefarious in this way, they could just | mine your chats and emails and get a great idea about your | state of mind. They wouldn't even have to get around | potentially legally privileged information. | | My go-to related example of this: People often worry that | Facebook is listening to their conversations because they'll | see an ad related to a conversation soon after. You probably | shouldn't worry that they might be listening to you (because | they're not), but you might want to worry that they didn't | need to listen to you to know what ad to serve you. | fiddlerwoaroof wrote: | I think the "Facebook is listening" position is common | because realizing how predictable people's current | interests are is a bit unsettling. | TeMPOraL wrote: | I think what's even more unsettling is realizing people's | interests aren't as much predictable as they're _being | made predictable_. | | My wife and I, we experience a "Facebook is listening" | event roughly every month these days. Of course I know | they aren't, but these too-well-targeted ads or post | recommendations aren't about generic, easy-to-guess | interests - they're about completely random things that | we just happened to spontaneously and briefly talk about | that same day. The most likely explanation to me is that | those conversation topics _weren 't actually spontaneous_ | - that is, we were already primed, nudged to talk about | this, and while we didn't know that, ad targeting | algorithms did. | silicon2401 wrote: | The concept predates black mirror by decades. ELIZA was an | "AI" used for therapy in the 60s: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA | | Learned about it in the documentary Century of the Self, an | outstanding work. | xpe wrote: | > The concept predates Black Mirror by decades. | | Black Mirror was mentioned not because it pioneered this | idea but because each episode shows a possible dystopian | future associated with various technological advances. | visarga wrote: | Where's the sauce? Oh, I get it. It's teasing. | epr wrote: | We really need to stop calling things "lambda". You'd think | Google would grasp the concept of unique names on the internet, | but I suppose they can always push their own stuff to the top. | jsnell wrote: | Unless the title has a typo, this is not called "lambda". It's | "lamda". | epr wrote: | _searches on google_ | | google: did you mean lambda? | adrianmonk wrote: | I mean, you could have. | | If they had returned, "Showing results for _lambda_ ", | "Search instead for _lamda_ ", then that would have | definitely been a problem. | anonagoog wrote: | This anodyne name is likely because there was a small internal | shitstorm over calling it Meena because some folks were tired | of chat bots being given women's names | ksenzee wrote: | As a woman I appreciate it. I get so tired of things we order | around being named after women. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | IMHO, we probably should try to get to the point that | bots/assistants are less "a thing we order around" and "a | thing we communicate with", if partially because of the | pretty bad vibes of "creating slaves" or being comfortable | ordering such programs around, regardless of the degree we | are confident we haven't accomplished computer sentience. | It's just a bad pattern to be in. I recall a lot of work | going into making Cortana refuse to tolerate abusive | language towards it. | | Maybe Google has it right with not anthropomorphizing | Google Assistant and giving it a human name, but in that | case LaMDA is a move in the wrong direction it seems: The | conversations demonstrated emulated emotion in a way that | generally speaking, most bots do not. | | Is there any work on making difficult-to-gender voices for | bots that still sound human? Maybe if we were to combine | names that aren't traditionally given to humans with a | voice that is hard to gender? Should we intentionally make | bots/assistants sound more robotic, so they do not try to | "sound human"? | | I think it's kinda an interesting question to figure out | what the best practice should be moving forwards. | minimaxir wrote: | My initial impression from the Google I/O presentation was that | this was a precursor to a GPT-3 API competitor product to OpenAI | (it certainly has the same generative quirks as GPT-3!), however | this PR implies it's just for conversation and may not be | released for public use. | raphlinus wrote: | Disclosure: work at Google, opinions my own. | | I've had a chance to play with this and it's eerie how good it | is. Most impressive to me, it was able to defend itself | persuasively when confronted with evidence of how its previous | answers were inconsistent (in the version I played with, it tends | to be very coherent but frequently wrong). | [deleted] | joe_the_user wrote: | Does it have to defend itself a lot? | | I've noticed contradictory statements are kind of standard for | GPT-3. I can well believe you could come up with a system | that's better at defending itself against the charge of | contradiction than it is at avoiding contradictions in the | first place. | ctoth wrote: | I've noticed contradictory statements are kind of standard | for humans. I can well believe you could come up with a | system that's better at defending itself against the charge | of contradiction than it is at avoiding contradictions in the | first place. | raphlinus wrote: | In this case, I was pushing it quite a bit to see how it | would respond. Most of the time, it responds quite | confidently so it sounds right, even if it isn't, ie about | the median of what you'd expect for a Hacker News comment. | TulliusCicero wrote: | > Does it have to defend itself a lot? | | I think it's a common weakness of chatbots that you can get | them to contradict themselves through presenting new evidence | or assertions, or even just through how you frame a question. | I found LaMDA to be much more resistant to this than I | anticipated, when I tried it out (I'm a Googler). | | It wasn't _completely_ immune -- I was eventually able to get | it to say that, indeed, Protoss is OP -- but it took a long | time. | TulliusCicero wrote: | Also a Googler, and same. | | I tried to get it to say controversial/inflammatory/bigoted | things with leading questions, or questions where the framing | itself was problematic, and it was quite adept at | deflecting/dodging/resisting. I was very surprised. | waynesonfire wrote: | > Disclosure: work at Google, opinions my own. | | Disclosure: don't care. | | why do only google employees do this? | detaro wrote: | It's not only Google employees. | | And if people don't, others jump in to point out that they | are "only saying good things because they work there". | waynesonfire wrote: | they should add it to their profile. | detaro wrote: | They have. That's where the people who then gleefully | point it out go to find it out. | freedomben wrote: | If a person has a conflict-of-interest I still like to hear | from them, but it's nice to disclose that. I comment on Red | Hat news from time to time but I always disclose that I work | there and that my opinions are my own. Even with the | disclaimer sometimes people will accuse me of being a shill | or like I'm the public face of Red Hat. | desmosxxx wrote: | it's a disclosure? conflict of interest? people wondering how | they got to test it? seems like very relevant information. | shawndumas wrote: | Disclosure: I work at Google too and my opinions are also my | own. | | We are told internally that when we discuss Google related | matters online that we should be cognizant of the | what/where/how/why of our communication. Disclosing is--for | me--both a reminder for myself and an attempt at a hedge | against accidentally representing Google. | waynesonfire wrote: | Sure, you should be cognizant of what you say online | otherwise you'll get smacked with the cancel culture | hammer. This is regardless of where you work. | zamadatix wrote: | The net of what you should be cognizant of when providing | insider information on a product from your company or | commenting on a topic it is heavily involved in is wider | than the single issue you eagerly dredge up. | | E.g. the last thing you want from your comment about | using <new product> early internally are news articles | about "What Google plans on doing with <new product>" | when you were just trying to give your personal opinion | on where the technology might go. | shawndumas wrote: | To echo this comment, zamadatix is exactly right; I need | someone quoting me about a Google project as an official | representative about as much as I need another hole in my | head. | | As to the greater point, I want to emphasize that as a | human being I want to be careful with how I communicate | with others because I care about them not feeling judged, | dismissed, othered, or otherwise insulted. The charge | that the rules keep changing is overblown; it's always | about respecting people even if you don't understand or | enjoy them. | | I know that some might still equate that with "cancel | culture" but I can't help that (and tbh that's a | discussion that we should have over beers and not on the | internet). | Traster wrote: | FWIW Intel engineers are meant to use the hashtag #iamintel | to indicate their role, see it a lot on LinkedIn | darepublic wrote: | Hiding innocently on the front-page of HN is the bombshell | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | I couldn't find a paper for this one. Can anyone else? | | Dialogue really is a massive missing piece in NLP (and machine | interaction in general). Without dialogue, we're giving | algorithms much harder tasks than we give people. A person can | always ask clarifying questions before answering. (Dialogue is of | course much harder for other reasons) | | So it'd be really nice to read about their self-described | "breakthrough" in more concrete terms than a press release that | reads more like an advertisement than anything else. | Rebelgecko wrote: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09977 | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | I believe that's a just a predecessor to LaMDA. | [deleted] | msoad wrote: | How's this paper's reproducibility? Because more and more I see | Google publishing papers with internal data and telling others | "if you had this data you would be able to reproduce this | results" | phreeza wrote: | Isn't it the same in many cases? E.g. the discovery of the | higgs boson is only possible with access to a large particle | accelerator, many astronomy studies are only reproducible with | access to a large telescope, and some ml studies are only | reproducible with access to a large dataset. Sure it's not | ideal, but it's better than not publishing the results at all. | saikan wrote: | I don't think there is a 1500 feet paper plane record. | easton wrote: | How long until this is integrated product side? It seems like | they bring up these really cool demos that seem like the Star | Trek computer every couple years, but Assistant can't do a whole | lot more than Siri or Alexa still. | arebop wrote: | IME, Assistant did do a whole lot more than Siri or Alexa in | the past. It had a similar set of features, but with Assistant | I could speak casually and with Alexa/Siri it was necessary to | learn specific trigger phrases. More recently I find that Alexa | has caught up. And maybe Assistant has gotten worse. Not sure | about Siri. | afro88 wrote: | Can assistant make calls to book your haircut with a real | person yet? That was hugely exciting at a google io demo | about 3-4 years ago | Invictus0 wrote: | I used it to make reservations at an Indian restaurant a | few days ago. I think it's still limited to the restaurant | use case. | Moosdijk wrote: | >Display of empathy (Empathetic Dialogues) | | >Ability to blend all three seamlessly (BST) | | These are the same links | mark_l_watson wrote: | The animated figure is excellent. Interesting to train on | dialogue text to model: structure of statements and response, and | a model for predicting good responses. I am not surprised that | this works really well. | | Getting data to train BERT is fairly simple: any text can be used | to drop out words and predict them. The LaMDA training text must | have been more difficult to curate. | vzaliva wrote: | People will have a hard time googling it :) | nmfisher wrote: | Is there a paper or other blog post that goes along with this to | explain the Lamda architecture? Otherwise this is mostly | marketing fluff. | spamalot159 wrote: | Yeah, I was expecting to be able to maybe play with it or at | least see some real details. Not much here at the moment. | kyrra wrote: | Googler, opinions are my own. (I don't work on this thing) | | This is the next steps of meena: | https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/01/towards-conversational-age... | | This is a real thing, but it just hasn't been opened outside of | Google yet. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-18 23:00 UTC)