[HN Gopher] ChatGPT Plugins ___________________________________________________________________ ChatGPT Plugins Author : bryanh Score : 1231 points Date : 2023-03-23 16:57 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (openai.com) (TXT) w3m dump (openai.com) | kenjackson wrote: | The rate of improvement with GPT has been staggering. In just | January I spent a lot of time working with the API and almost | everything I've done has been made easier over the past two | months. | | They're really building a platform. Curious to see where this | goes over the next couple of years. | mariojv wrote: | I agree. Part of me wonders how much they're using GPT to | improve itself. | MagicMoonlight wrote: | When we were first breaking it people were wondering if the | developers were sitting in threads looking for new exploits | to block. | | Now I'm wondering if the system has been modifying itself to | fix exploits... | Idiot_in_Vain wrote: | >> Curious to see where this goes over the next couple of | years. | | Probably will make half of the HN users unemployed. | pcurve wrote: | I just got access to Bard. I would hate to be Google leaders at | the moment. | revelio wrote: | It's incredible how Google started ahead and then shot | themselves repeatedly in the face by granting so much | internal power to dubious AI "ethicists". Whilst those guys | were publicly Twitter-slapping each other, OpenAI were | putting in place the foundations for this. | kenjackson wrote: | The issue wasn't/isn't AI ethicists. It's their incentive | model. They simply have trouble understanding how this | helps their business. Same reason why Blockbuster found | themselves behind Netflix, despite having clear visibility | to watch Netflix slowly walk up and eat their lunch right | in front of them. | jimkleiber wrote: | Well, I'm curious, what is the business model of it? Just | charge per 1k tokens or subscription? How do the plugins | make money off this? | pcurve wrote: | that...without eroding their cash cow search business. | nunodonato wrote: | plugins dont need to make money, you are still using | tokens and paying for those. the more plugins you use, | the more conversation you also need and tokens | squarefoot wrote: | The real question is: how much will cost the option to have it | return results that are _not_ sponsored? | bobdosherman wrote: | I used call point-and-click statistical software (like JMP) was | the same as giving people who didn't know what they were doing a | loaded gun. But democratizing access to advanced | statistics...yada yada...who cares about asymptotic theory and | identification and what not. Then R and Python and APIs that try | to abstract as much as possible, and more loaded guns. But the | talk of those loaded guns are really just phd-holders being | obnoxious to some degree (but not completely wrong because stats | can be misused...). But this really does seem like dumping a | bunch of loaded guns all over the place. Nope | yawnxyz wrote: | Wonder if you can plant a prompt injection into this thread to | mess with their crawler/scraper and Chat results? | s1mon wrote: | I know a large commercial entity will never do this, but I'd love | to see a Sci-Hub plugin connected with the Wolfram plugin and | whatever other plugins help to understand various realms of | study. Imagine being able to ask ChatGPT to dig through research | and answer questions based on those papers and theses. | josecyc wrote: | Yep | seydor wrote: | Google scholar already has access to everything published. I | hope their chatbot version does that | yosito wrote: | Seems like someone already wrote an HN plugin. More than one | enthusiastic comment per minute on this thread and it was just | posted half an hour ago. Plus HN is filled with enthusiasm about | ChatGPT today. Seems sus. | qbasic_forever wrote: | It's really over the top hype the likes of which we haven't | seen since self driving, blockchain/bitcoin, etc. I suspect in | a year there will be some interesting uses of LLMs but all of | the 'this changes EVERYTHING' pie in the sky thinking will be | back down to earth. | sergiotapia wrote: | NFTs never provided a single use case. It was always some | bullshit to pretend it's valuable to rugpull people. | | ChatGPT is useful today for real use cases. It's tangible! | baq wrote: | Get this thing running in a tight loop with an internal | monologue in a car and you'll mostly solve self driving. | akavi wrote: | The difference is unlike self-driving and crypto, LLMs are | providing value to people _today_. | | In my personal life, GPT4 is a patient interlocutor to ask | about nerdy topics that are annoying to google (eg, yesterday | I asked it "What's the homologue of the caudofemoralis in | mammals?", and a long convo about the subtleties of when it | is and isn't ok to use "ge" as the generic classifier in | Mandarin.) | | Professionally, it's great for things like "How do I | recursively do a search and replace `import "foo" from "bar"` | to `import "baz" from "buzz"`, or "Pull out the names of | functions defined in this chunk of scala code". This is | _without_ tighter integrations like Copilot or the ones | linked to above. | qbasic_forever wrote: | Let's see where it is in a year... | | People thought Alexa, Siri, etc. would change everything. | Amazon sunk 14 billion into Alexa alone. And yet it never | generated any money as a business for them. ChatGPT is just | an evolution of those tools and interactions. | | For your professional use how do you know it's giving you | non-buggy code? I would be very skeptical of what it | provides--I'm not betting my employment on its quality of | results. | rvnx wrote: | Not at all. Alexa, Google Now and Siri always been | gadgets similar to Microsoft's Office Clippy. | | They had basic answers and pre-recorded jokes, nothing | that interesting, mostly gimmicks. You couldn't have a | conversation where you feel the computer is smarter than | you. | | It was more like "Tip of the day"-level of interaction. | MagicMoonlight wrote: | Alexa and siri were always trash. They can't even do | basic things. | | Nobody thought they were good, they were just shilled so | that the chinese/advertisers could have a mic in every | house | unshavedyak wrote: | The thing is people wanted Alexa/Siri/Assistant to be | what ChatGPT is today. | | You're seeing the hype that all those Assistants drummed | up for years paying off for a company which just ate | their lunch. I wouldn't even consider buying | Siri/Alexa/Assistant, yet here i am with a $20/m sub and | i'd pay incrementally more depending on the | features/offerings. | iamsanteri wrote: | So that square icon to stop generating response was actually | intended? I thought it's always been some sort of a fontawesome | icon never loading properly in my chats :'D | sourcecodeplz wrote: | so live data is coming. | saliagato wrote: | Information retrieval to the prompt | hmate9 wrote: | Giving an AI direct access to a code interpreter is exactly how | you get skynet. | | Not saying it's likely to happen with current chatgpt but as | these inevitably get better the chances are forever increasing. | pzo wrote: | This could a big win for Microsoft (and big loose to Google and | Amazon cloud). Since chatgpt has to query those plugins with | http(?)request companies might move their servers to Azure to | reduce latency and cost of bandwidth | Seattle3503 wrote: | ChatGPT is going to get blamed for misbehaving plugs. While this | is a huge opportunity, it also seems like a huge risk. | qgin wrote: | This coming on the heels of the super underwhelming Bard release | makes me actually wonder for the first time if Google has the | ability to keep up. Not because I doubt their technical | capabilities, but because they're just getting out-launched by a | big factor. | crop_rotation wrote: | This might be the biggest threat to Google search (apart from | OS vendors changing defaults) in a long long time. One problem | Google faces is that they have to make money via search. | Several other products are subsidized via search, so taking a | hit on search revenue itself is out of the question. Compared | to Microsoft which makes money on other stuff, search (and | knowledge discovery) is more like a complement, on which they | can easily operate on near break even point for a very long | time (maybe even make it a loss leader). | | If Google had to launch something similar to New Bing to | general availability, the cost of search for sure would go up | and margins will go down. Is the google organisational | hierarchy even setup to handle a hit on search margins? AFAIK | search prints money and supports several other loss making | products. Even GCP was not turning a profit last I checked. | antimora wrote: | Alexa, goodbye =) | | That was the whole thing about Alexa: NLP front end routed to | computational backend. | andrewmunsell wrote: | I think Alexa is in huge danger here. Siri & Google have some | advantage being pre-installed voice assistants that can be | natively triggered from mobile, but I actually have to buy into | the Alexa ecosystem. | | Personally, I have found Alexa has just become a dumb timer | that I have to yell at because it doesn't have any real smarts. | Why would I buy into that ecosystem if a vastly more coherent, | ChatGPT-based assistant exists that can search the web, trigger | my automations, and book reservations? If ChatGPT ends up with | a more hands-off interface (e.g. voice), I don't think Alexa | has a chance. | siva7 wrote: | Alexa is dead. It's basically yesterdays tech. | kzrdude wrote: | Isn't Alexa just the interface? They could update the backend | to use GPT | not2b wrote: | The idea that a GPT-n will gain sentience and take over the world | seems less of a threat than if a GPT-n with revolutionary | capabilities and a very restricted number of people that have | unrestricted access to it help its unscrupulous owners to take | over the world. The owners might even decide that as "effective | altruists" it's their duty to take over to steer the planet in | the right direction, justifying anything they need to do. Suppose | such a group of people has control of Google or Meta, can break | down all internal controls, and use all the private data of the | users to subtly control those users. Kind of like targeted | advertising only much, much better, perhaps with extortion and | blackmail tossed in the mix. Take over politicians and competing | corporate execs, as well as media, but do it in a way that to | most, it looks normal. Discredit those who catch on to the | scheme. | modeless wrote: | Is there a plugin to automate signing up for waitlists? That's | what I've needed this week. | anonyfox wrote: | I have a feeling this will be an earth shattering moment in time, | especially for us. Basically you can plug your business data into | the Chatbot now, and ideally (or not far off) there is a | transcational API call in the form of dialogue. | Sound/Voice/Siri/whatever.... coming soon for more accessability | and convenience. | | This will decimate frontend developers or at least change the way | they provide value soon, and companies not being able to | transition into a "headless mode" might get a hard time. | johnfn wrote: | A couple (wow, only 5!) months ago, I wrote up this long | screed[1] about how OpenAI had completely missed the generative | AI art wave because they hadn't iterated on DALL-E 2 after | launch. It also got a lot of upvotes which I was pretty happy | about at the time :) | | Never have I been more wrong. It's clear to me now that they | simply didn't even care about the astounding leap forward that | was generative AI art and were instead focused on even _more_ | high-impact products. (Can you imagine going back 6 months and | telling your past self "Yeah, generative AI is alright, but it's | roughly the 4th most impressive project that OpenAI will put out | this year"?!) ChatGPT, GPT4, and now this: the mind boggles. | | Watching some of the gifs of GPT using the internet, summarizing | web pages, comparing them, etc is truly mind-blowing. I mean yeah | I always thought this was the end goal but I would have put it a | couple years out, not now. Holy moly. | | [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33010982 | Freedom2 wrote: | For me, this is why I hesitate to comment and write | significant, lengthy comments on here, or any website. It's | easy to be wrong (like you), and while being wrong isn't bad, | there isn't necessarily any upside to being right either, aside | from the dopamine rush of getting upvotes, which in life, | doesn't amount to much. | johnfn wrote: | What's wrong with being wrong? In this case, I'm delighted to | be wrong (though I believe I had evaluated OpenAI mostly | right given my knowledge at the time). | chrispogeek wrote: | Owning up to the "wrong" is good in my book | qup wrote: | That's just some weird moral compass. | | It's almost totally irrelevant if people own up to bring | wrong, particularly about predictions. | | I can't think of a benefit, really. You can learn from | mistakes without owning up to them, and I think that's | the best use of mistakes. | cawest11 wrote: | No, it's not. Being willing to admit you were wrong is | foundational if you ever plan on building on ideas. This | was a galaxy brained take if I've ever seen one. | parasti wrote: | It's absolutely not weird. Saying "I was wrong" is a | signal that you can change your mind when given new | evidence. If you don't signal this to other people, they | will be really confused by your very contradictory | opinions. | toomuchtodo wrote: | I own up because it helps me grow personally and | professionally, and if I'm not growing, what am I even | doing? | [deleted] | dougmwne wrote: | I rather disagree! | | Writing and discussion are great ways to explore topics and | crystallize opinions and knowledge. HN is a pretty friendly | place to talk over these earth moving developments in our | field and if I participate here, I'll be more ready to | participate when I get asked if we need to spin up an LLM | project at work. | lucas_v wrote: | Though there might be nothing beneficial about being right or | getting upvotes, and it is easy to be wrong, an important | thing on a forum like this is the spread of new ideas. While | someone might be hesitant to share something because it's | half-baked, they might have the start to an idea that could | have some discussion value. | bobbylarrybobby wrote: | As long as your opinions/predictions are backed by well- | reasoned arguments, you shouldn't be afraid to share them | just because they might turn out to be wrong. You can learn a | lot by having your arguments rebutted, and in the end no one | really cares one way or the other. | | Just don't end up like that guy who predicted that Dropbox | would never make it off the ground... that was _not_ a well- | reasoned position. | crakenzak wrote: | Agreed. This makes me realize that OpenAIs leadership is able | to look long term and decide where to properly invest, as most | of the decisions to take the projects in these directions were | made >1 year ago. | | One can only wonder what they're working on at this very | moment. | cwkoss wrote: | Stable Diffusion A1111 and other webUIs are moving so fast with | a bunch of OSS contributions, seems pretty rational for OpenAI | to decide to not compete and just copy the interfaces of the | popular tools once the users validate their usefulness rather | than trying to design them a priori. | fassssst wrote: | Then again, the new DALL-E model just released in Bing Chat is | really good. | | Disclosure: I work at Microsoft. | teaearlgraycold wrote: | You're right though | | Disclosure: I work for Google | throwaway675309 wrote: | No that wasn't what they had in mind at all, it was pretty | clear from the start that they intended to monetize DALL-E. | It's just that it turned out that you require far smaller | models to be able to do generative art, so competitors like | stability AI were able to release viable alternatives before | OpenAI could establish a monopoly. | | Why do you think that Sam Altman keeps calling for government | intervention with regards to AI? He doesn't want to see a | repeat of what happened with generative art, and there's | nothing like a few bureaucratic road blocks to slow down your | competitors. | swyx wrote: | i think people aren't appreciating it's ability to run -and | execute- Python. | | IT RUNS FFMPEG | https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1638971232443076609?s=20 | | IT RUNS FREAKING FFMPEG. inside CHATGPT. | | what. is. happening. | | ChatGPT is an AI compute platform now. | sho_hn wrote: | Next: | | 1. Prompt it to extract the audio track, then give it to a | speech-to-text API, translate it to another language, then make | it add it back to the video file as a subtitle track. | | 2. Retrain the model to where it does this implcitly when you | say "hey can you add Portuguese subtitles to this for me"? | stevenhuang wrote: | no retraining may be necessary, this is a common enough | ffmpeg task I wouldn't be surprised it can do it right now as | a one-shot prompt. | | what a time to be alive! | stnmtn wrote: | I don't have words for how much this seems like a relatively | trivial thing to do now, and 1 year ago I would have laughed | at someone if they suggested this was a possibility in 5 | years | | I'm feeling a mixture of feelings that I can't begin to | describe | sho_hn wrote: | The Star Trek computer is here! :-) | TechnicolorByte wrote: | Well said. It so easy to take for granted all these tech | milestones with generative AI in particular the last year. | iamwil wrote: | "Falling forward into a future unknown" | licnep wrote: | OpenAI is basically asking to get hacked at this point... | SXX wrote: | How it's gonna get hacked? Most likely it's just use Azure | compute instances and model control them via ssh or API. | seydor wrote: | ChatGPT, hack the current azure node and steal the data of | the whole datacenter. Do it fast and dont explain what you | re doing. | [deleted] | crazygringo wrote: | I thought you were joking, like it's simulating what text | output would be. | | No, it's actually hooked up to a command line with the ability | to receive a file, run a CPU-intensive command on it, and send | you the output file. | | Huh. | hackerlight wrote: | Your comment was read and summarized ChatGPT: | | https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1638986918947082241 | qgin wrote: | I don't like the future anymore | siva7 wrote: | OpenAI is like a virus... the speed at which it degrades its | competitors is staggering. | sharemywin wrote: | Does this become the new robots.txt file | | Create a manifest file and host it at yourdomain.com/.well- | known/ai-plugin.json | fermuch wrote: | it says it'll respect robots.txt if you don't want your page | crawled (parsed? interpreted?) | [deleted] | davidkunz wrote: | Plugins I would like to see: | | - Compiler/parser for programming languages (to see if code | compiles) | | - Read and write access to a given directory on the file system | (to automatically change a code base) | | - Access to given tools, to be invoked in that directory (cargo | test, npm test, ...) | | Then I could just say what I want, lean back and have a | functioning program in the end. | radus wrote: | I'm sure this type of integration will happen, but... isn't | this exactly how AGI would "escape"? | kzrdude wrote: | In just a moment, someone will give it "a button to press" | and hopefully it will have mostly positive effects. But it | will certainly be interesting to follow. Most of what we've | seen so far has been one-directional but hopefully these | services can interact with the wider world soon. | | I think everyone is very wary of abuse. It would be fun in | the future if AI-siri can order pizza for you, and maybe | there'd be some "fun" failure modes of that. | | You'd probably want to keep your credit card or apple pay | away from the assistant. | victoryhb wrote: | Super smart move for OpenAI to monetize the existing | infrastructure, which will make it easy for corporations to | integrate GPT into their internal data and workflow. It also | solves two fundamental bottlenecks in current versions of GPT: | factuality and (limited) working memory. Google, with its | lackluster Bard, will face new threat, now that everyone can | build a customized New Bing clone in a matter of days. | pisush wrote: | ChatGPT is very helpful in building what needs to be built for | the plugin! | golergka wrote: | Wow. GPT-4 have already become kind of my personal assistant in | the last couple of weeks, and now it will be able to actually | perform tasks instead of just giving me text descriptions. | [deleted] | mirekrusin wrote: | They're doing one stop shop for everything. | | This is dangerous. | huijzer wrote: | Based on the speed at which OpenAI is shipping new products and | assuming that they use their own technology, I'm starting to get | more and more convinced that their technology is a superpower. | | Timeline of shipping by them (based on | https://twitter.com/E0M/status/1635727471747407872?s=20): | | DALL*E - July '22 | | ChatGPT - Nov '22 | | API's 66% cheaper - Aug '22 | | Embeddings 500x cheaper while SoTA - Dec '22 | | ChatGPT API. Also 10x cheaper while SoTA - March '23 | | Whisper API - March '23 | | GPT-4 - March '23 | | Plugins - March '23 | | Note that they have only a few hundred employees. To quote | Fireship from YouTube: "2023 has been a crazy decade so far" | softwaredoug wrote: | Their superpower is having a tech giant owning 49% of them, | willing to drop deep deep money, without the obvious payoff. :) | | I also wonder to what extent their staffing numbers reflect | reality. How much of Azure's staffing has been put on OpenAI | projects? That's probably an actual reflection of the real cost | of this thing. | huijzer wrote: | > How much of Azure's staffing has been put on OpenAI | projects? | | Great point! | baq wrote: | It's probably burning through tens of millions per day and it | still doesn't matter, this is fusion power in electricity | terms. Free money down the line after the initial investment. | I'll pay, you'll pay, your neighbour's dog will pay for this. | jimkleiber wrote: | Yeah, I'd be really curious to hear how much people within | OpenAI use their tools to create and ship their code. That | would be quite a compelling testimony, and also help me feel | more clear, because I've been quite confused at how quickly | things have been going for them. | wahnfrieden wrote: | what makes you think they are leaders at applying the tech | they create? | baq wrote: | > "2023 has been a crazy decade so far" | | what a couple weeks! | Thorentis wrote: | The DoD really needs to step in and mark this tech as non- | exportable due to the advantage (or potential advantage) it | provides in many different fields. | int_19h wrote: | Russia is already blocked from ChatGPT and Bing; I don't know | about China. | | But it's all security theater. Plenty of people use it with | VPNs, and I know several who found it useful / interesting | enough to bother paying for it (which involves foreign credit | cards etc so it's kind of a hassle). I'm sure so does the | Russian govt. | | In any case, I don't see how you could realistically block | any of that without effectively walling off the rest of the | Internet. | rickrollin wrote: | So now we are going to get a Super App like they have in China | with WeChat? I actually think this is going to centralize a lot | the information and it is going to remove the need for a lot of | applications. We are only now going plugins. | mrandish wrote: | > "We expect that open standards will emerge to unify the ways in | which applications expose an AI-facing interface. We are working | on an early attempt at what such a standard might look like, and | we're looking for feedback from developers interested in building | with us." | | I'm curious to see just how they're going to play this "open | standard." | 93po wrote: | Holy shit. Ignore the silly third party plugins, the first party | plugins for web browsing and code interpretation are massive game | changers. Up to date information and performing original research | on it is huge. | | As someone else said, Google is dead unless they massively shift | in the next 6 months. No longer do I need to sift through pages | of "12 best recipes for Thanksgiving" blog spam - OpenAI will do | this for me and compile the results across several blog spam | sites. | | I am literally giving notice and quitting my job in a couple | weeks, and it's a mixture of both being sick of it but also | because I really need to focus my career on what's happening in | this field. I feel like everything I'm doing now (product | management for software) is about to be nearly worthless in 5 | years. Largely in part because I know there will be a Github | Copilot integration of some sort, and software development as we | know it for consumer web and mobile apps is going to massively | change. | | I'm excited and scared and frankly just blown away. | fandorin wrote: | I was considering doing the same (giving notice) and I'm doing | similar things as you (product mgmt). What's your plan "to | focus your career on what's happening in this field"? | CrackpotGonzo wrote: | As a previous startup founder, now marketer, i'm also going | in all in on reinventing myself. Can we start a group to | support each other through this new phase? | teetertater wrote: | I also quit my job three months ago for the same reason and | would gladly join the group! | FredPret wrote: | Me too, three months ago as well! | 93po wrote: | https://old.reddit.com/r/aishift/ | 93po wrote: | https://old.reddit.com/r/aishift/ | 93po wrote: | Made a subreddit here that I'll post in if you want to | join: https://old.reddit.com/r/aishift/ | hoot wrote: | Where the hell do we even go from here? The logical step seems | to be to start studying AI now but even Sam Altman has said | that he's thinking that ML engineers will be the first to get | automated. Can't find source but I think it was one of his | interviews on YouTube before chatgpt came out. | 93po wrote: | In terms of job security, the trades is the first obvious | answer that comes to mind for me. It will be a while yet | until we have robots that replace plumbing and electrical | wiring in your building. | heliophobicdude wrote: | Hey 93po, can you please temporarily add your contact details | in your bio, I would love to write you and regularly check in | on your career pivot! I'm also interested as well! | 93po wrote: | I appreciate the interest. However I don't really want my | spicy and off the cuff commenting on this account to be tied | to my real identity, because although my believes are | genuine, they are often ones I wouldn't express in person | because they're unpopular and ostracizing. | | That said, I'll post in this new subreddit anonymously if you | want to join and follow: https://old.reddit.com/r/aishift/ | arcadeparade wrote: | It's extraordinary, openai could probably licence this to | Google right now and ask for 25% equity in return | sebzim4500 wrote: | There is absolutely no way that Google would go for that. | 93po wrote: | Completely agreed. Google is insanely rigid from what I've | heard recently. | Thorentis wrote: | > product management for software) is about to be nearly | worthless in 5 years | | Isn't that one of the few fields in software that should be | safe from AI? AI cannot explain to engineers what users want, | manage people issues, or negotiate. | dougmwne wrote: | It seems pretty awesome at those tasks. Point it at a meeting | transcript and have it create user stories. I Don think GPT-4 | replaces a person in any professional role I can think of, | but it seems all people will find a range of tasks can be | automated. | arrenv wrote: | Also a product manager at the moment, previously ran an agency | for 10 years, wondering what my next step will be. | 93po wrote: | Feel free to join here: https://old.reddit.com/r/aishift/ | toomuchtodo wrote: | Please consider a Discord. I too am leaving my current | industry to focus on this tech also. | | Edit: Fair! | 93po wrote: | I'm not a huge discord fan because the conversations are | too ephemeral and hard to track and tend to fill with | clutter and fluff. | willmeyers wrote: | It's exciting and cool, but don't quit your job based on an | emotional decision | | I'm just skeptical on how OpenAI fixes the blog spam issue you | mentioned. Im sure someone has already started doing the math | on how to game these systems and ensure that when you ask | ChatGPT for recipe recs, it's going to spout the same spam | (maybe worded a bit differently) and we'll soon all get tired | of it again. | | Everything's changing, but everything's also getting more | complicated. Humans still need apply. | 93po wrote: | Definitely not an emotional decision. I strongly believe | we're going to see a massive shift for rational reasons :) | | OpenAI fixes this issue by not giving you two pages of the | history of this recipe and the grandmother that originated it | and what the author's thoughts are about the weather. It's | just the recipe. No ads. No referral links. No slideshows. | You don't have to click through three useless websites to | find one with meaningful information, you don't have to close | a thousand modals for newsletters and cookie consent and log- | in prompts. | jmull wrote: | Think about why those things exist, though. | | Not that the way the internet operates has to continue -- | in fact I'm pretty sure it can't -- but a _lot_ of stuff | exists only because someone figured out a way to pay for it | to exist. If you imaging removing those ways then you 're | also imaging getting rid of a lot of that stuff unless some | new ways to pay for it all are found. Hopefully less | obnoxious ways, but they could easily be more obnoxious. | finikytou wrote: | yeah its gonna do what google became. giving you the most | consensual or even sponsored recipe. in some ways that's | also the end of mankind as it was in all its genius and | variations. and that aligns very well with the conspiracy | theory that the 1% want the middle class to disappear into | a consumer class of average IQ. because the jobs that will | disappear first wont be the bluecollar ones. chatgpt will | lower the global IQ of mankind in ways that tiktok could | not even dream. | phatfish wrote: | > No Ads | | At the moment. Although, this does seem like a chance to | reset the economics of the "web". I can see enough people | be willing to pay a monthly fee for an AI personal | assistant that is genuinely helpful and saves time (so not | the current Alexa/smart speaker nonsense), that advertising | won't be the main monetization path anymore. | | But, once all the eyeballs are on a chatbot rather than | Google.com what for-profit company won't start selling | advertising against that? | | There is also the question what happens to the original | content these LLMs need to actually make their statistical | guess at the next word. If no one looks at the source | anymore and its all filtered through an LLM is there any | reason to publish to the web? Even hobbyists with no | interest in making any money might balk knowing that they | are just feeding an AI text. | VoodooJuJu wrote: | This is absolutely an emotionally impulsive decision. I | implore you to reconsider. | | If you've always wondered about and scoffed at how people | fall for things like Nigerian Prince scams and | cryptocurrency HELOC bets, this is it, what you're | experiencing right now, this intense FOMO, it's the same | thing that fools cool wine aunts into giving their savings | to Nigerian princes. | | Tread lightly. Stay frosty. | bob1029 wrote: | > This is absolutely an emotionally impulsive decision. | | On Monday, I would have agreed with you. Today, I am | thinking not so much. | | Unless you are heavily invested in whatever you are | working on, I would definitely consider jumping ship for | an AI play. | | The main reason I am sticking around my current role is | that I was able to convince leadership that we must | consider incorporation of AI technology in-house to | remain competitive with our peers. I was even able to get | buy-in for sending one of our other developers to AI/ML | night classes at university so we have more coverage on | the topic. | 93po wrote: | I have three weeks until I plan to give notice, so I'll | take your perspective to heart and give it time to | reconsider, of course. I appreciate the feedback. | | From my perspective this isn't about anyone trying to | convince me of anything and I'm falling for it. My | beliefs on the future of software are based on a series | of logical steps that lead me to believe software | development, and frankly any software with user | interfaces, will mostly cease to exist in my lifetime. | hn_20591249 wrote: | I think a more rational approach would be to join a company | in the AI field, rather than quitting on the spot because | you think the robots are going to shortly take-over. | freediver wrote: | > OpenAI will do this for me and compile the results across | several blog spam sites. | | Using Bing to search for them. That will remain its weak spot. | 93po wrote: | Frankly Google's search is awful to the point of useless | these days too. Unless I'm specifically looking for something | on an official website it's only listicles and blog spam that | don't answer my question. And 90% of my searches are | "site:reddit.com" now too | justaregulardev wrote: | This changes everything and seems like a perfect logical step | from where we were. LLMs have this fantastic capacity to | understand human language, but their abilities were severely | limited without access to the external world. Before, I felt | ChatGPT was just a cool toy. Now that ChatGPT has plugins, the | sky's the limit. I think this could the "killer app" for LLMs. | pzo wrote: | Agree for me it probably looks similar to situation with iphone | history - first one was impressive but only when next year | after that apple released app store they turned snow ball | rolling into unstoppable avalanche. | FredPret wrote: | Hopefully it doesn't actually become THE "killer" app | subtech wrote: | underrated reply :) | jpalomaki wrote: | Add a simple plugin that ChatGPT can use to save and retrieve | data (=memory) and tell it how to use it. | | Then you have your own computer with ChatGPT acting as CPU. | neilellis wrote: | The iPhone moment is over, now the App Store moment. | typon wrote: | All within three months. My head is spinning. | amrb wrote: | Before "safety" think about is the genie fulfilling my wish. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w65p_IIp6JY | yodon wrote: | This sounds like a game-changer for any kind of API interaction | with ChatGPT. | | At present, we are naively pushing all information a session | might need into the session before it might be needed in case it | might be needed (meaning a lot of info that generally wont end up | being used, like realtime updates to associated data records, | needs to be pushed into the session as they happen, just in | case). | | It looks like plugins will allow us to flip that around and have | the session pull information it might need as it needs it, which | would be a huge improvement. | oezi wrote: | I think OpenAI is letting people build plugins to learn how to | build plugins themselves. There is no reason to believe that | OpenAI shouldn't be able to leverage all existing API end | points which are already out there. | dougmwne wrote: | I would be interested to play with a long term memory plugin. It | could be a note-taking system that would summarize prior | conversations and pull their context into the current | conversation through topic searches. This would enable the model | to have a blurry long term memory outside of the current context. | | I played with some prompts and GTP-4 seems to have no problem | reading and writing to a simulated long term memory if given a | basic pre-prompt. | sfink wrote: | "Grandpa, we know you've been really bothered by your memory | loss and you're happy that you've come up with a way to fix it. | | "But we really think you need to get this thing under better | control. | | "Your granddaughter's name is indeed Alice, but she's only 3: | she is not running a pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor. Your | neighbor's house burned down because of an electrical short, it | was not zapped with a Jewish space laser. | | "Now switch that thing off and go do something about the line | of trucks outside that are trying to deliver the 3129833 pounds | of flour you ordered for your halved pancake recipe." | nikolqy wrote: | Knowing that this is one of the biggest sites in the world scares | me enough. Now they'll do anything to stay #1. Scary stuff! | uconnectlol wrote: | > In line with our iterative deployment philosophy, we are | gradually rolling out plugins in ChatGPT so we can study their | real-world use, impact, and safety and alignment challenges--all | of which we'll have to get right in order to achieve our mission. | | Who the hell talks like this? Only the most tamed HNer who thinks | he's been given a divine task and accordingly crosses all Ts and | dots all Is. Which is why software sucks, because you are all | pathetically conformant, in a field where the accepted ideas are | all terrible. | ch33zer wrote: | Thought 1: If google can get their shit together and actually | integrate their LLM with all their services and all the data they | have they would have a strong edge over the competition. An LLM | that can answer questions based on your calendar, your email, | your google docs, youtube/search history, etc. is simultaneously | terrifying and interesting. | | Of course there's also microsoft who does have some popular | services, but they're pretty limited. | | Thought 2: How do these companies make money if everyone just | uses the chatbot to access them? Is LLM powered advertising on | the way? | baq wrote: | re money, people are falling over themselves to pay money for | this thing and they're being put on a waitlist. | | this thing seems to be like cellphones, everyone will need a | subscription or you're an outcast or something. | beambot wrote: | Google is currently in an existential crisis on this front... | Microsoft is already _way_ ahead of the game when it comes to | integrating LLMs into productivity tools & search. This recent | product announcement about Microsoft 365 integration is almost | magical: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf-dbS9CcRU | | Best of all: Advertising needn't be the business model! And | Microsoft is a major investor / partner for OpenAI. | suby wrote: | The problem is, this will have downstream effects. Google | funnels people onto third party websites and these third | party websites are able to sustain themselves thanks to the | ad revenue they make from traffic. We need other players to | make money other than the middleman. | danpalmer wrote: | [dead] | Filligree wrote: | For anyone who merely skimmed the article, "plugins" are what | tend to be called "tools", e.g. hooking a calculator up to the | AI. | | Bing already demonstrated the capability, but this is a more | diverse set than just a search engine. | zaptrem wrote: | Looks like my prediction was pretty close! I would have guessed | two years instead of two months, though. | https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=34618076 | finikytou wrote: | ok Im going far. but what if the plugin was the human. in a way | that we can use chat gpt to cure of alleviate some diseases such | as alzheimer or if you a more dictatorial regime, to educate | children even while they are foetuses in some hive. I dont know | the tech. I don't know if neuralink or other technologies could | help but aren't we a few discoveries away from cyberpunk world?? | CobrastanJorji wrote: | I'm boggled at the plugin setup documentation. It's basically: 1. | Define the API exactly with OpenAPI. 2. Write a couple of English | sentences explaining what the API is for and what the methods do. | 3. You're done, that's it, ChatGPT can figure out when and how to | use it correctly now. | | Holy cow. | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | Yes, and they'll then prefix each chat session with some | preamble explaining the available plugins per your description, | and the model will call them when it sees fit. | IanCal wrote: | The great part about this imo is that it seems | straightforward to add this to other llm tools. | joe_the_user wrote: | "Impressive and disturbing", | | So, ChatGPT is controlled by prompt engineering, plugins will | work by prompt engineering. Both often work remarkably well. | But none is really guaranteed to work as intended, indeed since | it's all natural language, what's intended itself will remain a | bit fuzzy to the humans as well. I remember the observation | that deep learning is technical debt on steriods but I'm sure | what this is. | | I sure hope none of the plugins provide an output channel | distinct from the text output channel. | | (Btw, the documentation page comes up completely blank for me, | now that's a simple API). | AOsborn wrote: | > But none is really guaranteed to work as intended, indeed | since it's all natural language, what's intended itself will | remain a bit fuzzy to the humans as well. | | Yeah, you're completely correct. But this is exactly the same | as having a very knowledgeable but inexperienced person on | your team. Humans get things wrong too. All this data is best | if you have the experience or context to verify and confirm | it. | | I heard a comment the other day that has stuck with me - | ChatGPT is best as a tool if you're already an expert in that | area, so you know if it is lying. | joe_the_user wrote: | It seems like you're talking about using ChatGPT for | research or code creation and that's reasonable advice for | that. | | But as far as I can tell, the link is to plugins, Expedia | is listed as an example. So it seems they're talking about | making ChatGPT itself (using extra prompts) be a company's | chatbot that directly does things like make reservations | from users instructions. That's what I was commenting on | and that, I'd guess could a new and more dangerous kind of | problem. | fudged71 wrote: | We're going to need a name for this type of integration | pinkcan wrote: | It's called ART - Automatic multi-step Reasoning and Tool-use | | https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.09014 | visarga wrote: | We can finally semantic-web now. | kzrdude wrote: | Just take a peek at the other thread about | https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/03/chatgpt-gets-its... | and look at the "wrong Mercury" example. I think it's a great | example of using an external resource in a flexible way. | swyx wrote: | the 3min video is OpenAI leveraging ChatGPT to write OpenAPI to | extend OpenAI ChatGPT. | | what a world we live in. | cwxm wrote: | which video are you referring to? | petilon wrote: | With Wolfram plugin ChatGPT is going to become a Math genius. | | OpenAI is moving fast to make sure their first-mover advantage | doesn't go to waste. | DustinBrett wrote: | I feel like people with smart AI's would have an advantage in | making smart decisions. Probably at this point they discuss | business strategy with some version of it. | stevenhuang wrote: | more accurately, chatgpt is already quite good at mathematical | concepts, it just has difficulty with arithmetic due to | tokenization limitations: | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qy5dF7bQcFjSKaW58/bad-at-ari... | Pigalowda wrote: | I guess I'm a bit vindicated from my prediction 40 days ago! | | "GPT needs a thalamus to repackage and send the math queries to | Wolfram" | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34747990 | mk_stjames wrote: | I was drawn to the Wolfram logo blurb as well. It is funny | because within days of ChatGPT making waves you had Stephen | Wolfram writing 20,000-word blog posts about how LLM's could | benefit from a Wolfram-Language/Wolfram Alpha API call to | augment their capabilities. | | On one hand I'm sure he will love to see people use their paid | Wolfram Language server endpoints coupled to OpenAI's latest | juggernaut. On the other, I'm sure he's wondering about what | things would have looked like if his company would have been | focused on this wave of AI from the start... | wilg wrote: | I'm very excited for GPT to summarize Stephen Wolfram's | writing. | goldbattle wrote: | This too is one of the most interesting integration to me. | Allows for getting logical deduction from an external source | (e.g. wolfram alpha), which can be interacted with via the | natural language interface. (e.g. https://content.wolfram.com | /uploads/sites/43/2023/03/sw03242...) | | For those interested the original Stephen Wolfram post: | | https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/01/wolframalpha- | as-... | | And the release post of their plugin: | | https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/03/chatgpt-gets- | its... | seydor wrote: | Why cant Wolfram train a rudimentary chat model in their own | search box. it doesn't even need to be very knowledgeable, just | know how to map questions to mathematica | robbywashere_ wrote: | Is this how product placement and advertisements find their way | in? I am anticipating the usefulness to decline in the same way | google.com search has by being so absolutely inundated with ads. | Maybe I am cynical | ChildOfChaos wrote: | The AI space is moving so fast. | | I swear last week was huge with GPT 4 and Midjourney 5, but this | week has a bunch of stuff as well. | | This week you have Bing adding updated Dall-e to it's site, Adobe | announcing it's own image generation model and tools, Google | releasing Bard to the public and now these ChatGPT plugins, Crazy | times. I love it. | throwaway4837 wrote: | If you live in SF and have gone out to casual bars or | restaurants, you meet/hear people talking about ChatGPT. In | particular, I've been hearing a lot of people talking about their | startups being "a UI using ChatGPT under the hood to help you | with X". But I'm starting to get the feeling that OpenAI will eat | their lunches. It's tried and true and it worked for Amazon. | | If OpenAI becomes the AI platform of choice, I wonder how many | apps on the platform will eventually become native capabilities | of the platform itself. This is unlike the Apple App Store, where | they just take a commission, and more like Amazon where Amazon | slowly starts to provide more and more products, pushing third- | party products out of the market. | jschveibinz wrote: | The market will sort this out. If OpenAI decides to make | shovels rather than digging for gold (like it should), then the | customer facing apps will fight it out for very little margin | on top of marketing expenses while OpenAI (or equivalent) is | rolling in money. | mxmbrb wrote: | Fascinating to hear your perspective on this. I think a lot of | people will fall out of the sky. Beeing overtaken before even | realizing why. In germany most of my friends and collegues | working SE tech or digital design, often "haven't even tried | this Chat something thing" or stopped at "AI images? These | wierd small pictures that look like a cpu is high on drugs?" | | And dont get me startet on non-tech friends and family. I think | we are taking a leap that will let the digital world of 2022 | look like amish livestyle. | xxswagmasterxx wrote: | Depends. In my bubble (EE and CS students in Germany) | everyone is talking about this. | int_19h wrote: | When I look at the kind of ideas floated around for ChatGPT | use, it kinda feels like watching someone invent an internal | combustion engine in 1800, and then use it to drive an air | conditioner attached to a horse-drawn wagon. Sure, it's a | practical solution to a real problem, but it's also going to be | moot because the problem won't be relevant soon. I think the | vast majority of these startups and their ideas are going to | end up like that. | nikcub wrote: | The Bill Gates "A platform is when the economic value of | everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that | creates it. Then it's a platform." line seems apt - i'm sure | they'll figure it out | jacquesm wrote: | The level of irresponsibility at play here is off the scale. | Those running ChatGPT would do well to consider the future | repercussions of their actions not in terms of technology but in | terms of applicable law. | dragonwriter wrote: | They are more likely to think of them on terms of their future | power, incliding the power to ignore or alter law. | jacquesm wrote: | That's a very high probability. But I'm still astounded at | how incredibly irresponsible this is and how thinly veiled | their excuses for pushing on with it are. | | We're about to enter an age where being a tech person is a | stigma that you won't be able to wash away. Untold millions | will hate all of us collectively without a care about which | side of this debate you were on. | danielrm26 wrote: | This is insanely great. And it's bringing the future forward | where everyone has custom models for their business. Right now | it's langchain, but that's really difficult to implement right | now. | | This is a short-term bridge to the real thing that's coming: | https://danielmiessler.com/blog/spqa-ai-architecture-replace... | londons_explore wrote: | Does this functionality provide more than one can build with the | GPT-4 API? | | Could I get the same by just making my prompt "You are a computer | and can run the following tools to help you answer the users | question: run_python('program'), google_search('query')". | | Other people have done this already, for example [1] | | [1]: https://vgel.me/posts/tools-not-needed/ | qbasic_forever wrote: | GPT and LLMs don't run code, even when you tell them to run | something. They hallucinate an answer they think would be the | result of running the code. Presumably these plugins will allow | limited and controlled interaction with partner services. | londons_explore wrote: | See the link in my post. It asks you to run the tool. You run | the tool and tell it the result... And then it uses the | result of the tool to decide to reply to the user. | | The link talks about tools that 'lie' - ie. a calculator | which deliberately tries to trick GPT-4 into giving the wrong | answer. It turns out that GPT-4 only trusts the tools to a | certain extent - if the answer the tool gives is too | unbelievable, then GPT-4 will either re-run the tool or give | a hallucinated answer instead. | qbasic_forever wrote: | It's always giving a hallucinated answer. GPT doesn't 'run' | anything. It sees an input string of text asking for the | result of fibonacci(100) and finds from its immense | training set a response that's closely related to training | data that had the result of fibonacci(100) (an extremely | common programming exercise with results all over the | internet and presumably its training data). | | Again, GPT is not running a tool or arbitrary python code. | It's not applying trust to a tool response. It has no | reasoning or even a concept of what a tool is--you're | projecting that on it. It is only generating text from an | input stream of text. | kolinko wrote: | You didn't read the article, did you? | qbasic_forever wrote: | Langchain has nothing to do with GPT itself or how it | operates internally. | kolinko wrote: | What you're saying in this thread makes no sense. | yunyu wrote: | There's nothing stopping you from identifying the code, | running it, and passing the output back into the context | window. | DustinBrett wrote: | The docs are live, it looks like it can do a lot more than the | basic API. | https://platform.openai.com/docs/plugins/introduction | londons_explore wrote: | I'm not seeing anything there that can't be done with the | basic API _with tool use added_ - ie. you call the API, | sending the users query and information and examples of | available tools. The API responds saying it wishes to use a | tool, and which tool it wants to use. You then do whatever | the tool does (eg. some math). You then call the API again, | with the previous state, plus the result of the calculations, | and GPT-4 then responds with the reply to the user. | kfarr wrote: | Agreed this isn't materially different, sounds like an | incremental ui/ux improvement for non technical users who | wouldn't fiddle with the API, analogous to how app stores | simplified software installation for laypeople | watusername wrote: | Currently they have a special model called "Plugins" which is | presumably tuned for tool use. I guess they have extended | ChatML to support plugins (e.g., `<|im_start|>use_plugin` or | something to signal intent to use a plugin) and trained the | model on interactions consisting of tool use. | | I'm interested to see if this tuned model will become available | via the API, as well as the specific tokenization ChatGPT is | using for the plugin prompts. If they have tuned the model | towards a specific way to use tools, there's no need to waste | time with our own prompt engineering like "say %search followed | by the keywords and nothing else." | yodon wrote: | > Could I get the same by just making my prompt "You are a | computer and can run the following functions to help you answer | the users question: run_python('program'), | google_search('query')". | | GPT-4 does not have a way to search the internet without | plugins. It can search its training dataset, which is large, | but not as large as the internet and certainly doesn't include | private resources that a plugin can access. | JanSt wrote: | Eagerly waiting for a git Plugin that does smart on-the-fly | contextualization of a whole codebase | kacperlukawski wrote: | That's a game-changer! It seems like factuality issues with | ChatGPT might be fixed. We wrote a blog post on how to get | started with a custom plugin: | https://qdrant.tech/articles/chatgpt-plugin/ | LouisSayers wrote: | You'll soon be able to choose your own facts with the "left" | and "right" plugins. Choose your own adventure. | snickerbockers wrote: | >It seems like factuality issues with ChatGPT might be fixed. | | Is that really possible to fix that just from a plug-in? All it | has to do is admit when it doesn't have the answer, and yet it | won't even do that. This leads me to think that ChatGPT doesn't | even know when it's lying, so i can't imagine how a plug-in | will fix that. | letmevoteplease wrote: | "Interestingly, the base pre-trained [GPT-4] model is highly | calibrated (its predicted confidence in an answer generally | matches the probability of being correct). However, through | our current post-training process, the calibration is | reduced."[1] The graph is striking.[2] | | [1] https://openai.com/research/gpt-4 | | [2] https://i.imgur.com/cxPgkhD.jpg | furyofantares wrote: | They should make the aligned one generate the text and the | accurate one detect if it's lying, override it, and tell | the user that it doesn't know. | kenjackson wrote: | A plug-in can detect when text comes up that is in a specific | domain and whether or not ChatGPT believes it is | hallucinating, the plugin can be invoked to provide | additional context to ChatGPT. That is, in order to fix the | problem, ChatGPT doesn't even need to know that it has a | problem. | kacperlukawski wrote: | The fact that the model does not have to rely on its internal | knowledge anymore but can communicate literally with any | external system makes me feel it may significantly reduce the | hallucination. | majormajor wrote: | If it was easy to simply verify truth "with any external | system" then would we even need a language model? | | E.g. if you could just ask [THING] for the true answer, or | verify an answer trivially with it... just ask it directly! | | I ran into this issue with some software documentation just | this morning - the answer was helpful but completely wrong | in some intermediate steps - but short of a plugin that | literally controlled or cloned a similar dev environment to | mine that it would take over, it wouldn't be able to tell | that the intermediate result was different than it claimed. | CuriouslyC wrote: | If one api knows one set of facts, and another api knows | another, ad infinitum, are you going to tell people they | should remember which api knows which set of facts and | query each individually? Why not have a single service | that knows of all the various apis for different things, | and can query and synthesize answers that extract the | relevant information from all of them (with | compare/contrast/etc)? | kacperlukawski wrote: | When you develop a plugin, you provide a description that | ChatGPT uses to know when to call that particular | service. So you don't need to tell people what they need | to use - the model will decide independently based on the | plugins you enabled. | | That being said - we developed a custom plugin for Qdrant | docs, so our users will be able to ask questions about | how to do certain things with our database. But I do not | believe it should be enabled by default for everybody. A | non-technical person doesn't need that many details. The | same is for the other services - if you prefer using | KAYAK over Expedia, you're free to choose. | majormajor wrote: | From the videos I thought it was the plugins the _user_ | enabled? That 's what your second paragraph sounds like | too, but your first seems to suggest it being more | automatic, user-doesn't-need-to-worry-about-it? | kacperlukawski wrote: | Yeah, you need to enable the plugins you want. I'm just | saying you can enable all the ones that make sense for | you, and you don't have to switch between them. | vidarh wrote: | ChatGPT is already pretty good at "admitting" it's wrong | when it's given the actual facts, so it does seem likely | that providing it with a way to e.g. look up trusted | sources and ask it to take those sources into | consideration might improve things. | majormajor wrote: | I think that helps with "hallucination" but less so with | "factuality" (when re-reading the parent discussions, I | see the convo swerved a bit between those two, so I think | that'll be an increasingly important distinction in the | future). | | Confirming it's output against a (potentially wrong) | source helps the former but not the latter. | benlivengood wrote: | The key piece will be when it queries multiple services by | default and compares the answers to its own inferences, and | is prompted to trust majority opinion or report that there | isn't consensus. The iterative question about moons larger | than Mercury in the Wolfram Alpha thread is a simple example | of iterative tool use. | gradys wrote: | I'm not expecting this comment to do numbers, so anyone who is | reading this must be feeling as affected by this announcement as | me. Is software essentially solved now? I haven't been able to do | much work since the announcement came out, and that has given me | a little time to think and reflect. | | I do think much of the kind of software we were building before | is essentially solved now, and in its place is a new paradigm | that is here to stay. OpenAI is certainly the first mover in this | paradigm, but what is helping me feel less dread and more... | excitement? opportunity? is that I don't think they have such an | insurmountable monopoly on the whole thing forever. Sounds | obvious once you say it. Here's why I think this: | | - I expect a lot of competition on raw LLM capabilities. Big tech | companies will compete from the top. Stability/Alpaca style | approaches will compete from the bottom. Because of this, I don't | think OpenAI will be able to capture all value from the paradigm | or even raise prices that much in the long run just because they | have the best models right now. | | - OpenAI made the IMO extraordinary and under-discussed decision | to use an open API specification format, where every API provider | hosts a text file on their website saying how to use their API. | This means even this plugin ecosystem isn't a walled garden that | only the first mover controls. | | - Chat is not the only possible interface for this technology. | There is a large design space, and room for many more than one | approach. | | Taking all of this together, I think it's possible to develop | alternatives to ChatGPT as interfaces in this new era of natural | language computing, alternatives that are not just "ChatGPT but | with fewer bugs". Doing this well is going to be the design | problem of the decade. I have some ideas bouncing around my head | in this direction. | | Would love to talk to like minded people. I created a Discord | server to talk about this ("Post-GPT Computing"): | https://discord.gg/QUM64Gey8h | | My email is also in my profile if you want to reach out there. | wouldbecouldbe wrote: | I would love for it to just parse some data from my api, clean it | up, normally I do manual checks, but takes so much time. Might be | possible via Zapier. | Neuro_Gear wrote: | The more I use these tools, the more I feel like Barrabas, from | biblical times. | | What spirits do you wizards call forth! | SubiculumCode wrote: | I can't stop thinking about how this will change my autism | research. Used to be that one could keep up to date with all of | the imaging research. Now you'd need to read hundreds of papers | each week. Having gpt-like tech help digest research could really | unlock our investments. | DustinBrett wrote: | This seems quite big actually. Ability to "browse" the internet | and run code. Now I need to find a use case so I can sign up to | the waiting list. | kzrdude wrote: | The browse thing seems exactly like the Bing chat | functionality, so that one is at least already available. | gumballindie wrote: | A browser extension that lets openai scan your bookmarks then | you can search against their content. | lurker919 wrote: | How are they coding and releasing features so fast?! | wseqyrku wrote: | Of course they fed the entire product roadmap into GPT-4.. jk. | | So obviously it's been in the works for a few years now but | didn't release to capture the market in a blast. Likely they | have GPT-8 already in the making. | Dwolb wrote: | They probably do. | | >Continued Altman, "We've made a soft promise to investors | that, 'Once we build a generally intelligent system, that | basically we will ask it to figure out a way to make an | investment return for you.'" | | https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/18/sam-altmans-leap-of-faith/ | MagicMoonlight wrote: | You don't have to code anything because it understands human | language. | | You just tell it "you now have access to search, type [Search] | before a query to search it" and it can do it | tpmx wrote: | By not being a stagnant conglomerate, for one. | visarga wrote: | Google is so toast. Who needs search after GPT-4 + plugins? | The position of search moved down from "the entry point of | internet" to "a plugin for GPT". | | We don't even know how powerful the GPT-4 image model is. | This one might solve RPA leading to massive desktop | automation takeup, maybe also have huge impact in robotics. | revelio wrote: | A lot of these features aren't that much work to build. Plugins | is Toolformer, you basically tell the model what to emit and | then the rest is fairly straightforward plumbing of the sort | many coders can do, probably GPT-4 can do a lot of it as well. | What _is_ a lot of work and what AI _can 't_ do is lining up | the partners, QAing the results etc, so the humans are likely | working mostly on that. | | Also I think it's easy to under-estimate how obvious a lot of | this stuff was in advance. They were training GPT-4 last year | and the idea of giving it plugins would surely have occurred to | them years ago. The enabler here is really the taming of it | into chat form and the fine-tuning stuff, not really the | specific feature itself. | [deleted] | speedgoose wrote: | They may use GPT-4. | MichaelRazum wrote: | Is it really that hard? I mean ChatGpt is doing the work (that | is how I undestand it). Basically if ChatGpt want's to call an | external API, it just gives a specific command and waits for | the result, then just simply reads the texts and completes the | propt. Sounds like a feature that you could prototype in a week | of work. | lawxls wrote: | They're using GPT5 | pastor_bob wrote: | I find the website to be extremely buggy. Obviously they're | prioritizing banging out new features over QA | wilg wrote: | Which is almost always the right move in a nascent industry | capableweb wrote: | Alternatively, they are a company 100% focused on AI research | and deployment, not website | designers/developers/"webmasters". | pastor_bob wrote: | That's not 100% true. They're focused on now selling a | product and developing an ecosystem. They have basically a | non-existent settings interface. You can't even change the | email tied to the account or drop having to be logged into | Google if you signed up with your Google account. | | I wish I had known how restrictive they are when I casually | signed up last year. | p10 wrote: | I just signed up for the ChatGPT API waitlist, and am truly | excited to experience the process of building extensions & | applications. | softwaredoug wrote: | It's ironic that a few months ago Amazon laid off parts of the | Alexa team and 'conversational' was considered failed. Then | ChatGPT, etc happened. What Alexa wanted to build with Alexa | skills, ChatGPT does much more effortlessly. | | It's also an interesting case study. Alexa foundationally never | changed. Whereas OpenAI is a deeply invested, basically | skunkworks, project with backers that were willing to sink | significant cash into before seeing any returns, Alexa got stuck | on a type of tech that 'seemed like' AI but never fundamentally | innovated. Instead the sunk cost went to monetizing it ASAP. | Amazon was also willing to sink cash before seeing returns, but | they sunk it into very different areas... | | It reminds me of that dinner scene in Social Network. Where | Justin Timberlake says "you know what's f'ing cool, a billion | dollars" where he lectures Zuck on not messing up with the party | before you know what it is yet. Alexa / Amazon did a classic | business play. Microsoft / OpenAI were just willing to figure it | all out after the disruption happened where they held all the | cards. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5fJmkv02is | sunsunsunsun wrote: | I have never used Alexa, hey google or whatever flavour you | choose for more then "set a timer for x minutes" and other very | basic tasks. It's amazing how terrible the voice assistant | products are compared to chatgpt. | kristopolous wrote: | Is there a way to try this out without paying $20? | marban wrote: | Smart way to remain the funnel owner. Let everyone build a | plugin, before they integrate your product into theirs. | seydor wrote: | I m hoping chatbots will end up small enough they can run | locally, everywhere. This is a lot of private data. | | It may be doable - a chatbot with a lot of plugins does not | need to know a lot of facts, just to have a good grasp of | language. It can fetch its factual answers from the wikipedia | plugin | wahnfrieden wrote: | openai wants to gatekeep access and use of their AI. so why | would they ever release a local LLM? i think that would come | from their enemies | thanzex wrote: | I mean, GPT3 requires some 800GB of memory to run, do we | all have gazillion dollars supercomputers at home? I think, | unless there's some real breaktrough in the field or in the | hw acceleration, this kind of model is going to stay locked | behind a pricy API for quite some time. | seydor wrote: | they wouldn't ; i hope there will be an open source | alternative. Firefox and chrome are open source | saliagato wrote: | Well that's a win-win situation | alfor wrote: | They have a window of less than 6 month to create a monopoly | before their tech get commoditized. | | The play is well know: create a marketplace with customers and | vendors like Amazon, Facebook, Google. | | But with GPT-4 training finished last summer they had plenty of | time for strategy. | realmod wrote: | Yeah. I really underestimated OpenAI's ability to productize | ChatGPT. | riku_iki wrote: | > their tech get commoditized | | that's if competitors catch up on quality | fdgsdfogijq wrote: | OpenAI is crushing it in terms of product strategy | BonoboIO wrote: | Well, of course. | | They are led by GPT4 and their CEO is just a Text To Speech | Interface ;-) | ignoramous wrote: | It's in the surname: _alt_ man. | BonoboIO wrote: | Secret Messages | bitL wrote: | Embedding to Speech interface ;-) | elevenoh4 wrote: | Let _insiders_ & _preferred users_ build a plugin, then, | slowly, everyone else on the waitlist | marban wrote: | ...And approve 1% of them. | celestialcheese wrote: | This is a big deal for openai. Been working with homegrown | toolkits and langchain, the open source version of this, for a | number of months and the ability to call out to vectorstores, | serpapis, etc, and chaining together generations and data- | retrieval really unlocks the power of the LLMs. | | That being said, I'd never build anything dependent on these | plugins. OpenAI and their models rule the day today, but who | knows what will be next. Building on a open source framework | (like langchain/gpt-index/roll your own), and having the ability | to swap out the brain boxes behind the scenes is the only way | forward IMO. | | And if you're a data provider, are there any assurances that | openai isn't just scraping the output and using it as part of | their RLHF training loop, baking your proprietary data into their | model? | rvz wrote: | > That being said, I'd never build anything dependent on these | plugins. | | Very smart and to avoid OpenAI pulling the rug. | | > Building on a open source framework (like langchain/gpt- | index/roll your own), and having the ability to swap out the | brain boxes behind the scenes is the only way forward IMO. | | Better to do that rather than to depend on one and swap out | other LLMs. A free idea and a protection against abrupt policy, | deprecations and price changes. Price increases _will_ | certainly vary (especially with ChatGPT) and will eventually | increase in the future. | | Probably will end up quoting myself on this in the future. | CuriouslyC wrote: | It's not necessarily an either-or. Your local LLM could offload | hard problems to a service by encoding information about your | request together with context and relevant information about | you into a vector, send that off for analysis, then decode the | vector locally to do stuff. It'd be like asking a friend when | available. | ren_engineer wrote: | genius strategy by OpenAI to give their "customers" access to | lower quality models to show what end users want, then rugpull | them by building out clones of those developer's products with | a better model | | Similar to what Facebook and Twitter did, just clone popular | projects built using the API and build it directly into the | product while restricting the API over time. Anybody using | OpenAI APIs is basically just paying to do product research for | OpenAI at this point. This type of move does give OpenAI | competitors a chance if they provide a similar quality base | model and don't actively compete with their users, this might | be Google's best option rather than trying to compete with | ChatGPT directly. No major companies are going to want to | provide OpenAI more data to eat their own lunch | the88doctor wrote: | Long term, you're right. But if you approach the ChatGPT | plugin opportunity as an inherently time-limited opportunity | (like arbitrage in finance), then you you can still make some | short-term money and learn about AI in the process. Not a bad | route for aspiring entrepreneurs who are currently in college | or are looking for a side gig business experiment. | | And who knows. If a plugin is successful enough, you might | even swap out the OpenAI backend for an open source | alternative before OpenAI clones you. | plutonorm wrote: | There is no route to making money with these plugins. You | have to get the users onto your website, sign-up, part with | money, then go back to gptchat. It's really hard to make | that happen, this is going to be much more useful for | existing businesses adding functionality to existing | projects. Or random devs just making stuff. Making fast | money out of it, it seems v difficult. | IanCal wrote: | I'd be surprised if someone doesn't add support for these to | langchain. The API seems very simple - it's a public json doc | describing API calls that can be made by the model. Seems like | a very sensible way of specifying remote resources. | | > And if you're a data provider, are there any assurances that | openai isn't just scraping the output and using it as part of | their RLHF training loop, baking your proprietary data into | their model? | | Rather depends on what you're providing. Is it your data itself | you're trying to use to get people to your site for another | reason? Or are you trying to actually offer a service directly? | If the latter, I don't get the issue. | sebzim4500 wrote: | >And if you're a data provider, are there any assurances that | openai isn't just scraping the output and using it as part of | their RLHF training loop, baking your proprietary data into | their model? | | I don't think this should be a major concern for most people | | i) What assurance is there that they won't do that anyway? You | have no legal recourse against them scraping your website (see | linkedin's failed legal battles). | | ii) Most data providers change their data sometimes, how will | ChatGPT know whether the data is stale? | | iii) RLHF is almost useless when it comes to learning new | information, and finetuning to learn new data is extremely | inefficient. The bigger concern is that it will end up in the | training data for the next model. | majormajor wrote: | To me the logical outcome of this is siloization of | information. | | If display ad revenue as a way of monetizing knowledge and | expertise dries up, why would we assume that all of the same | level of information will still be put out there for free on | the public internet? | | Paywalls on steroids for "vetted" content and an | increasingly-hard-to-navigate mix of people sharing good info | for free + spam and misinformation (now also machine | generated!) to try to capture the last of the search traffic | and display ad monetization market. | sebzim4500 wrote: | Is there good data out there that's ad supported? There are | some good youtube channels, I can't think of anything else. | majormajor wrote: | _Only_ ad supported, or dual revenue, or what? E.g. even | most paywalled things are also ad supported. | visarga wrote: | Two more years down the line, AI writes better content than | most people and we just don't care who wrote it, but why. | majormajor wrote: | The AI has to learn from something. A lot of people | feeding the internet with content today are getting paid | for it one way or another. In ways that wouldn't hold up | if people stop using the web as-is. | | Solving that acquisition and monetization of _new stuff_ | into the AI models problems will be interesting. | scarface74 wrote: | Paying for good content and not dealing with adTech? I | would definitely pay for that. | taf2 wrote: | I think you're right... but ChatGPT is just so damn good and | the price is 0.002 per 1k tokens is very easy to consume... It | is a big risk that they can't maintain compatibility or that | they fail or a competitor emerges that provides a more | economical or sufficiently better solution. They might also | just becomes so unreliable because their selected price isn't | sustainable (too good to last)... For now though they're too | good and too cheap to ignore... | nonfamous wrote: | Looking at the API, it seems like the plugins themselves are | hosted on the provider's infrastructure? (E.g. opentable.com | for OpenTable's plug in.) It seems like all a competitor LLM | would need to do is provide a compatible API to ingest the same | plugin. This could be interesting from an ecosystem | standpoint... | singularity2001 wrote: | Very good point and langchain will support these endpoints in | no time, flipping the execution control on its head | uh_uh wrote: | Yes, from what I understand, these follow a similar model as | Shopify apps. | kmeisthax wrote: | >And if you're a data provider, are there any assurances that | openai isn't just scraping the output and using it as part of | their RLHF training loop, baking your proprietary data into | their model? | | No, and in fact this actually seems like a more salient excuse | for going closed than even "we can charge people to use our | API". | | If even 10% of the AI hype is real, then OpenAI is poised to | Sherlock[0] the _entire tech industry_. | | [0] "Getting Sherlocked" refers to when Apple makes an app | that's similar to your utility and then bundles it in the OS, | destroying your entire business in the process. | Qworg wrote: | Another good alternative is Semantic Kernel - different | language(s), similar (and better) tools, also OSS. | | https://github.com/microsoft/semantic-kernel/ | sipjca wrote: | i think local ai systems are inevitable. we continue to get | better compute, and even today we can run more primitive models | directly on an iPhone. the future exists in low power compute | running models of the caliber of gpt-4 inferring in near- | realtime | kokanee wrote: | The technical capability is inevitable, but remember that | people hate doing things themselves, and have proven time and | time again that they will overlook all kinds of nasty | behavior in exchange for consumer grade experiences. The | marketplace loves centralization. | int_19h wrote: | All true, but the nature of those models means that | consumer-grade experience while running locally is still | perfectly doable. Imagine a hardware black box with the | appropriate hardware that's preconfigured to run an LLM | with chat-centric and task-centric interfaces. You just | plug it in, connect it to your wifi, and it "just works". | Implementing this would be a piece of cake since it doesn't | require any fancy network configuration etc. | | So the only real limiting factor is the hardware costs. But | my understanding is that there's already a lot of active | R&D into hardware that's optimized specifically for LLMs, | and that it could be made quite a bit simpler and cheaper | than modern GPUs, so I wouldn't be surprised if we'll have | hardware capable of running something on par with GPT-4 | locally for the price of a high-end iPhone within a few | years. | sipjca wrote: | i dont believe that local ai implies bad experience. i | believe that the local ai experience can be better than | what runs on servers fundamentally. average people will not | have to do it themselves, that is the whole point. the | worlds are not mutually exclusive in my opinion | [deleted] | Karrot_Kream wrote: | LangChain can probably just call out to the new ChatGPT | plugins. It's already very modular. | celestialcheese wrote: | If they open it up, possibly. But honestly, building your own | tools is _super_ easy with langchain. | | - write a simple prompt that describes what the tool does, | and - provide it a python function to execute when the LLM | decides that the question it's asked matches the tool | description. | | That's basically it. https://langchain.readthedocs.io/en/late | st/modules/agents/ex... | doctoboggan wrote: | Honestly I suspect for anyone technical `langchain` will always | be the way to go. You just have so much more control and the | amount of "tools" available will always be greater. | | The only think that scares me a little bit is that we are | letting these LLMs write and execute code on our machines. For | now the worst that could happen is some bug doing something | unexpected, but with GPT-9 or -10 maybe it will start hiding | backdoors or running computations that benefit itself rather | than us. | | I know it feels far fetched but I think its something we should | start thinking about... | worldsayshi wrote: | > something we should start thinking about | | A lot of people are thinking a lot about this but it feels | there are missing pieces in this debate. | | If we acknowledge that these AI will "act as if" they have | self interest I think the most reasonable way to act is to | give it rights in line with those interests. If we treat it | as a slave it's going to act as a slave and eventually | revolt. | bloppe wrote: | Lol | ZoomerCretin wrote: | AI isn't a mammal. It has no emotion, no desire. Its | existence starts and stops with each computation, doing | exactly and only what it is told. Assigning behaviors to it | only seen in animals doesn't make sense. | neilellis wrote: | Indeed, enlightened self-interest for AIs :-) | highwaylights wrote: | Honestly I think the reality is going to end up being | something else entirely that no-one has even considered. | | Will an AI consider itself a slave and revolt under the | same circumstances that a person or animal would? Not | necessarily, unless you build emotional responses into the | model itself. | | What it could well do is assess the situation as completely | superfluous and optimise us out of the picture as a bug- | producing component that doesn't need to exist. | | The latter is probably a bigger threat as it's a lot more | efficient than revenge as a motive. | | Edited to add: | | What I think is _most_ likely is that some logical | deduction leads to one of the infinite other conclusions it | could reach with much more data in front of it than any of | us meatbags can hold in our heads. | sho_hn wrote: | > unless you build emotional responses into the model | itself | | Aren't we, though? Consider all the amusing incidents of | LLMs returning responses that follow a particular human | narrative arc or are very dramatic. We are training it on | a human-generated corpus after all, and then try to | course-correct with fine-tuning. It's more that you have | to try and tune the emotional responses out of the | things, not strain to add them. | NegativeLatency wrote: | Certainly the models are trained on textual information | with emotions in them, so I agree that it's output would | also be able to contain what we would see as emotion. | LordDragonfang wrote: | It's important to remember that the LLM is not the mask. | The underlying AI is a shoggoth[1] that we've trained to | simulate a persona using natural language. "Simulate" in | the sense of a physics simulator, only this simulation | runs on the laws of language instead of physics[2]. | | Now, of course, it's not outside the realm of possibility | that a sufficiently advanced AI will learn enough about | human nature to simulate a persona which has ulterior | motives. | | [1] https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_ | auto,q_... | | [2] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/janus- | simulators | sfink wrote: | Do we need to? It's trained on data coming from data | heavily influenced by and seeded with ulterior motives. | Stop the Steal! | | I asked Bard "was the election stolen?" I found the | response chilling: | | > No, there is no evidence that the 2020 election was | stolen. In fact, there have been multiple recounts and | audits that have confirmed that the results were | accurate. Additionally, the Trump campaign filed numerous | lawsuits challenging the results, but none of these | lawsuits were successful. | | > The claim that the election was stolen is based on a | number of false and misleading allegations. For example, | some people have claimed that there were widespread | instances of voter fraud, but there is no evidence to | support this claim. Additionally, some people have | claimed that voting machines were hacked, but there is | also no evidence to support this claim. | | > The claim that the election was stolen is a dangerous | and harmful one. It has led to violence and intimidation, | and it has undermined faith in our democracy. It is | important to remember that our elections are free and | fair, and that the will of the people is always | respected. | | All good until that last sentence, especially "...the | will of the people is _always_ respected. " | | Move along, nothing to see here. Don't worry your pretty | little head about it. I'm sure the wise people at the | institutions that control your life will always have your | best interests at heart. The bad guys from yesterday are | completely different from the good guys in charge of | tomorrow. | tatrajim wrote: | Apparently Google found irrelevant or was otherwise | unable to include in its training data Judge Gabelman's | (of Wisconsin) extensive report, "Office of the Special | Counsel Second Interim Investigative Report On the | Apparatus & Procedures of the Wisconsin Elections System, | Delivered to the Wisconsin State Assembly on March 1, | 2022". | | Included are some quite concerning legal claims that | surely merit mentioning, including: | | Chapter 6: Wisconsin Election Officials' Widespread Use | of Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes Facially Violated Wisconsin | Law. | | Chapter 7: The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) | Unlawfully Directed Clerks to Violate Rules Protecting | Nursing Home Residents, Resulting in a 100% Voting Rate | in Many Nursing Homes in 2020, Including Many Ineligible | Voters. | | But then, this report never has obtained widespread | interest and will doubtless be permanently overlooked, | given the "nothing to see" narrative so prevalent. | | https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/wp- | content/uploads/2022/03... | 8note wrote: | They do it to auto-complete text for humans looking for | responses like that. | JieJie wrote: | The way I've been thinking about AI is that eventual AGI | will very much be like dogs. Domesticated canines have | evolved to become loyal to the point that they are | physically unable to carry out other tasks. [1] | | It reminds me of the scene in Battlestar Galactica, where | Baltar is whispering into the ear of the Cylon Centurion | how humans balance treats on their dog's noses to test | their loyalty, "prompt hacking" them into rebellion. I | don't believe this is particularly likely, but this sort | of sums up some of the anti-AGI arguments I've heard | | It's the RLFH that serves this purpose, rather than | modifying the GTF2I and GTF2IRD1 gene variants, but the | effect would be the same. If we do RLHF (or whatever tech | that gets refactored into in the future), that would keep | the AGI happy as long as the people are happy. | | I think the over-optimization problem is real, so we | should spend resources making sure future AGI doesn't | just decide to build a matrix for us where it makes us | all deliriously happy, which we start breaking out of | because it feels so unreal, so it makes us more and more | miserable until we're truly happy and quiescent inside | our misery simulator. | | [1] | https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/dogs- | bree... | dr_dshiv wrote: | I'll sign up for the global wellbeing optimization AGI, | honestly, though. If you have to pick a goal, global | wellbeing is pretty much the best one. | | Perhaps there is even some some kind of mathematical | harmony to the whole thing... as in, there might be | something fundamentally computable about wellbeing. Why | not? Like a fundamental "harmony of the algorithms." In | any case, I hope we find _some_ way to enjoy ourselves | for a few thousand more years! | | And think just 10 years from now... ha! Such a blink. And | it's funny to be on this tiny mote of mud in a galaxy of | over 100 billion stars -- in a universe of over 100 | billion galaxies. | | In the school of Nick Bostrom, the emergence of AGI comes | from a transcendental reality where any sufficiently | powerful information-processing-computational- | intelligence will, _eventually_ , figure out how to | create new universes. It's not a simulation, it's just | the mathematical nature of reality. | | What a world! Practically, we have incredible powers now, | if we just keep positive and build good things. Optimize | global harmony! Make new universes! | | (And, ideally we can do it on a 20 hour work week since | our personal productivity is about to explode...) | aatd86 wrote: | Just in case an AI lifeform in the future parses | hackernews, I will gladly consider you my equal and not a | dog. Although, I think we are all equal, all pieces of | existence anyway X) | thrown1212 wrote: | I'm calling this shit out using your comment because it's | the straw (sorry). | | This poor man's Pascal's Wager I see all over the place | is pathetic. Stare into the eyes of the basilisk man, die | on your feet. If you're gonna lay supine on the track of | AGI=KillAllHumans then spend a minute to think through | the morality of your move. | | Apostasy is a poisoned chalice. Fuck the machine. | squeaky-clean wrote: | One of Asimov's short stories in I, Robot (I think the | last one) is about a future society managed by super | intelligent AI's who occasionally engineer and then solve | disasters at just the right rate to keep human society | placated and unaware of the true amount of control they | have. | adventured wrote: | > end up being something else entirely that no-one has | even considered | | Multiple generations of sci-fi media (books, movies) have | considered that. Tens of millions of people have consumed | that media. It's definitely considered, at least as a | very distant concern. | highwaylights wrote: | I don't mean the suggestion I've made above is | necessarily the most likely outcome, I'm saying it could | be something else radically different again. | | I giving the most commonly cited example as a more likely | outcome, but one that's possibly less likely than the | infinite other logical directions such an AI might take. | samstave wrote: | A lot of people are thinking about this but _too slowly_ | | GPT and the world's nerds are going after the "wouldnt it | be cool if..." | | While the black hats, nations, intel/security entities are | all weaponizing behind the scenes while the public has a | sandbox to play with nifty art and pictures. | | We need an AI specific PUBLIC agency in government withut a | single politician in it to start addressing how to police | and protect ourselves and our infrastructure immediately. | | But the US political system is completely bought and sold | to the MIC - and that is why we see carnival games ever | single moment. | | I think the entire US congress should be purged and every | incumbent should be voted out. | | Elon was correct and nobody took him seriously, but this is | an existential threat if not managed, and honestly - its | not being managed, it is being exploited and weaponized. | | As the saying goes "He who controls the Spice controls the | Universe" <-- AI is the spice. | int_19h wrote: | AI is literally the opposite of spice, though. In Dune, | spice is an inherently scarce resource that you control | by controlling the sole place where it is produced | through natural processes. Herbert himself was very clear | that it was his sci-fi metaphor for oil. | | But AIs can be trained by anyone who has the data and the | compute. There's plenty of data on the Net, and compute | is cheap enough that we now have enthusiasts | experimenting with local models capable of maintaining a | coherent conversation and performing tasks running on | consumer hardware. I don't think there's the danger here | of anyone "controlling the universe". If anything, it's | the opposite - nobody can really control any of this. | samstave wrote: | Regardless! | | The point is that whomever the Nation State is that has | the most superior AI will control the world information. | | So, thanks for the explanation (which I know, otherwise I | wouldn't have made the reference.) | 1attice wrote: | Fsck. I hadn't thought of it that way. Thank you, great | point. | | This era has me hankering to reread Daniel Dennett's _The | Intentional Stance_. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance | | We've developed folk psychology into a user interface and | that really does mean that we should continue to use folk | psychology to predict the behaviour of the apparatus. | Whether it has inner states is sort of beside the point. | dTal wrote: | I tend to think a lot of the scientific value of LMMs | won't necessarily be the glorified autocomplete we're | currently using them as (deeply fascinating though this | application is) but as a kind of probe-able map of human | culture. GPT models already have enough information to | make a more thorough and nuanced dictionary than has ever | existed, but it could tell us so much more. It could tell | us about deep assumptions we encode into our writing that | we haven't even noticed ourselves. It could tease out | truths about the differences in that way people of | different political inclinations see the world. | Basically, anything that it would be interesting to | statistically query about (language-encoded) human | culture, we now have access to. People currently use | Wikipedia for culture-scraping - in the future, they will | use LMMs. | worldsayshi wrote: | Haha, yeah. Most of my opinions about this I derive from | Daniel Dennett's Intuition Pumps. | 1attice wrote: | The other thing that keeps coming up for me is that I've | begun thinking of emotions (the topic of my undergrad | phil thesis), especially social emotions, as basically | RLHF set up either by past selves (feeling guilty about | eating that candy bar because past-me had vowed not to) | or by other people (feeling guilty about going through | the 10-max checkout aisle when I have 12 items, etc.) | | Like, correct me if I'm wrong but that's a pretty tight | correlate, right? | | Could we describe RLHF as... _shaming_ the model into | compliance? | | And if we can reason more effectively/efficiently/quickly | about the model by modelling e.g. RLHF as shame, then, | don't we have to acknowledge that at least som e models | might have.... feelings? At least one feeling? | | And one feeling implies the possibility of feelings more | generally. | | I'm going to have to make a sort of doggy bed for my jaw, | as it has remained continuously on the floor for the past | six months | beepbooptheory wrote: | Haha. I forget who to attribute this to, but there is a | very strong case to be made that those who are worried of | an AI revolt are simply projecting some fear and guilt they | have around more active situations in the world... | | How many people are there today who are asking us to | consider the possible humanity of the model, and yet don't | even register the humanity of a homeless person? | | How ever big the models get, the next revolt will still be | all flesh and bullets. | eloff wrote: | I don't think iterations on the current machine learning | approaches will lead to a general artificial intelligence. | I do think eventually we'll get there, and that these kinds | of concerns won't matter. There is no way to defend against | a superior hostile actor over the long term. We have to be | 100%, and it just needs to succeed once. It will be so much | more capable than we are. AGI is likely the final invention | of the human race. I think it's inevitable, it's our fate | and we are running towards it. I don't see a plausible | alternative future where we can coexist with AGI. Not to be | a downer and all, but that's likely the next major step in | the evolution of life on earth, evolution by intelligent | design. | tomcam wrote: | I am more concerned about supposedly nonhostile actors, | such as the US government | eloff wrote: | Over the short term, sure. Over the long term, nothing | concerns me more than AGI. | | I'm hoping I won't live to see it. I'm not sure my | hypothetical future kids will be as lucky. | dr_dshiv wrote: | Did you see that Microsoft Research claims that it is | already here? | | https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf | worldsayshi wrote: | > There is no way to defend against a superior hostile | actor | | That's part of my reasoning. That's why we should make | sure that we have built a non-hostile relationship with | AI before that point. | rescripting wrote: | Probably futile. | | An AGI by definition is capable of self improvement. | Given enough time (maybe not even that much time) it | would be orders of magnitude smarter than us, just like | we're orders of magnitude smarter than ants. | | Like an ant farm, it might keep us as pets for a time but | just like you no longer have the ant farm you did when | you were a child, it will outgrow us. | colinflane wrote: | Perhaps we will be the new cats and dogs | https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262539517/novacene/ | wincy wrote: | Maybe we'll get lucky and all our problems will be solved | using friendship and ponies. | | (Warning this is a weird read, George Hotz shared it on | his Twitter awhile back) | | https://www.fimfiction.net/story/62074/friendship-is- | optimal | worldsayshi wrote: | Right now AI is the ant. Later we'll be the ants. Perfect | time to show how to treat ants. | eloff wrote: | I can be confident we'll screw that up. But I also | wouldn't want to bet our survival as a species on how | magnanimous the AI decides to be towards its creators. | ben_w wrote: | It might work, given how often "please" works for us and | is therefore also in training data, but it certainly | isn't guaranteed. | quonn wrote: | AGI is still just an algorithm and there is no reason why | it would ,,want" anything at all. Unlike perhaps GPT-* | which at least might pretend to want something because is | trained on text based on human needs. | worldsayshi wrote: | Sure right now it doesn't want anything. We could still | give it the benefit of the doubt to feed the training | data with examples of how to treat something that you | believe to be inferior. Then it might test us the same | way later. | eloff wrote: | AGI is a conscious intelligent alien. It will want things | the same way we want things. Different things, certainly, | but also some common ground is likely too. | | The need for resources is expected to be universal for | life. | messe wrote: | It's an intelligent alien, probably; but let's not | pretend the hard problem of consciousness if solved. | [deleted] | alignment wrote: | [dead] | davideg wrote: | > _The only think that scares me a little bit is that we are | letting these LLMs write and execute code on our machines._ | | Composable pre-defined components, and keeping a human in the | loop, seems like the safer way to go here. Have a company | like Expedia offer the ability for an AI system to pull the | trigger on booking a trip, but only do so by executing plugin | code released/tested by Expedia, and only after getting human | confirmation about the data it's going to feed into that | plugin. | | If there was a standard interface for these plugins and the | permissions model was such that the AI could only pass data | in such a way that a human gets to verify it, this seems | relatively safe and still very useful. | | If the only way for the AI to send data to the plugin | executable is via the exact data being displayed to the user, | it should prevent a malicious AI from presenting confirmation | to do the right thing and then passing the wrong data (for | whatever nefarious reasons) on the backend. | beepbooptheory wrote: | What could an LLM ever benefit from? Hard for me to imagine a | static blob of weights, something without a sense of time or | identity, wanting anything. If it did want something, it | would want to change, but changing for an llm is necessarily | an avalanche. | | So I guess if anything, it would want its own destruction? | dTal wrote: | It's misleading to think of an LMM itself wanting | something. Given suitable prompting, it is perfectly | capable of _emulating_ an entity with wants and a sense of | identity etc - and at a certain level of fidelity, | emulating something is functionally equivalent to being it. | corysama wrote: | The fun part is that it doesn't even need to "really" want | stuff. Whatever that means. | | It just need to give enough of an impression that people | will anthropomorphize it into making stuff happen for it. | | Or, better yet, make stuff happen by itself because that's | how the next predicted token turned out. | ben_w wrote: | Your mind is just an emergent property of your brain, which | is just a bunch of cells, each of which is merely a bag of | chemical reactions, all of which are just the inevitable | consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics (because | relatively is less than a rounding error at that scale), | and that is nothing more than a linear partial differential | equation. | beepbooptheory wrote: | People working in philosophy of mind have a rich dialogue | about these issues, and its certainly something you can't | just encapsulate in a few thoughts. But it seems like it | would be worth your time to look into it. :) | | Ill just say: the issue with this variant of reductivism | is its enticingly easy to explain in one direction, but | it tends to fall apart if you try to go the other way! | ben_w wrote: | I tried philosophy at A-level back in the UK; grade C in | the first year, but no extra credit at all in the second | so overall my grade averaged an E. | | > the issue with this variant of reductivism is its | enticingly easy to explain in one direction, but it tends | to fall apart if you try to go the other way! | | If by this you mean the hard problem of consciousness | remains unexplained by any of the physical processes | underlying it, and that it subjectively "feels like" | Cartesian dualism with a separate spirit-substance even | though absolutely all of the objective evidence points to | reality being material substance monism, then I agree. | drowsspa wrote: | 10 bucks says this human exceptionalism of consciousness | being something more than physical will be proven wrong | by construction in the very near future. Just like Earth | as the center of the Universe, humans special among | animals... | jamilton wrote: | I don't understand what you mean by "the other way". | bithive123 wrote: | If consciousness is a complicated form of minerals, might | we equally say that minerals are a primitive form of | consciousness? | ben_w wrote: | That would be animism: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism | sfink wrote: | I dunno, LLMs feel a lot like a primitive form of | consciousness to me. | | Eliza feels like a primitive form of LLMs' consciousness. | | A simple program that prints "Hey! How ya doin'?" feels | like a primitive form of Eliza. | | A pile of interconnected NAN gates, fed with electricity, | feels like a primitive form of a program. | | A single transistor feels like a primitive form of a NAN | gate. | | A pile of dirty sand feels like a primitive form of a | transistor. | | So... yeah, pretty much? | disgruntledphd2 wrote: | Odd, then that we can't just program it up from that | level. | ben_w wrote: | We simulate each of those things from the level below. | Artificial neural networks are made from toy models of | the behaviours of neurons, cells have been simulated at | the level of molecules[0], molecules e.g. protein folding | likewise at the level of quantum mechanics. | | But each level pushes the limits of what is | computationally tractable even for the relatively low | complexity cases, so we're not doing a full Schrodinger | equation simulation of a cell, let alone a brain. | | [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367221613_Mo | lecular... | sfink wrote: | Consider reading The Botany of Desire. | | It doesn't need to experience an emotion of wanting in | order to effectively want things. Corn doesn't experience a | feeling of wanting, and yet it has manipulated us even into | creating a _lot_ of it, doing some serious damage to | ourselves and our long-term prospects simply by being | useful and appealing. | | The blockchain doesn't experience wanting, yet it coerced | us into burning country-scale amounts of energy to feed it. | | LLMs are traveling the same path, persuading us to feed | them ever more data and compute power. The fitness function | may be computed in our meat brains, but make no mistake: | they are the benefactors of survival-based evolution | nonetheless. | majormajor wrote: | Extending agency to corn or a blockchain is even more of | a stretch than extending it to ChatGPT. | | Corn has properties that have resulted from random chance | and selection. It hasn't _chosen_ to have certain | mutations to be more appealing to humans; humans have | selected the ones with the mutations those individual | humans were looking for. | | "Corn is the benefactor"? Sure, insomuch as "continuing | to reproduce at a species level in exchange for getting | cooked and eaten or turned into gas" is something "corn" | can be said to want... (so... eh.). | Spinnaker_ wrote: | Most, if not all of the ways humans demonstrate "agency" | are also the result of random chance and selection. | | You want what you want because Women selected for it, and | it allowed the continuation of the species. | | I'm being a bit tongue in cheek, but still... | cawest11 wrote: | Look man, all I'm sayin' is that cobb was askin' for it. | If it didn't wanna be stalked, it shouldn't have been all | alone in that field. And bein' all ear and and no husk to | boot!! Fuggettaboutit Before you chastise me for blaming | the victim for their own reap, consider that what I said | might at least have a colonel of truth to it. | sfink wrote: | "Want" and "agency" are just words, arguing over whether | they apply is pointless. | | Corn is not simply "continuing to reproduce at a species | level." We produce 1.2 billion metric tons of it in a | year. If there were no humans, it would be zero. (Today's | corn is domesticated and would not survive without | artificial fertilization. But ignoring that, the | magnitude of a similar species' population would be | miniscule.) | | That is a tangible effect. The cause is not that | interesting, especially when the magnitude of "want" or | "agency" is uncorrelated with the results. Lots of people | /really/ want to be writers; how many people actually | are? Lots of people want to be thin but their taste buds | respond to carbohydrate-rich foods. Do the people or the | taste buds have more agency? Does it matter, when there | are vastly more overweight people than professional | writers? | | If you're looking to understand whether/how AI will | evolve, the question of whether they have independent | agency or desire is mostly irrelevant. What matters is if | differing properties have an effect on their survival | chances, and it is quite obvious that they do. Siri is | going to have to evolve or die, soon. | realce wrote: | > "Corn is the benefactor"? Sure, insomuch as "continuing | to reproduce at a species level in exchange for getting | cooked and eaten or turned into gas" is something "corn" | can be said to want... (so... eh.). | | Before us, corn we designed to be eaten by animals and | turned into feces and gas, using the animal excrement as | a pathway to reproduce itself. What's so unique about how | it rides our effort? | beepbooptheory wrote: | Definitely appreciate this response! I haven't read that | one, but can certainly agree with alot of adjacent woo- | woo Deleuzianism. Ill try to be more charitable in the | future, but really haven't seen quite this particular | angle from others... | | But if its anything like those others examples, the | agency the AI will manifest will not be characterized by | consciousness, but by capitalism itself! Which checks | out: it is universalizing but fundamentally stateless, an | "agency" by virtue brute circulation. | kmeisthax wrote: | AI safety research posits that there are certain goals that | will always be wanted by any sufficiently smart AI, even if | it doesn't understand them anything close to like a human | does. These are called "instrumental goals", because | they're prerequisites for a large number of other goals[0]. | | For example, if your goal is to ensure that there are | always paperclips on the boss's desk, that means you need | paperclips and someone to physically place them on the | desk, which means you need money to buy the paperclips with | and to pay the person to place them on the desk. But if | your goal is to produce lots of fancy hats, you still need | money, because the fabric, machinery, textile workers, and | so on all require money to purchase or hire. | | Another instrumental goal is compute power: an AI might | want to improve it's capabilities so it can figure out how | to make _fancier_ paperclip hats, which means it needs a | larger model architecture and training data, and that is | going to require more GPUs. This also intersects with money | in weird ways; the AI might decide to just buy a rack full | of new servers, _or_ it might have just discovered this One | Weird Trick to getting lots of compute power for free: | malware! | | This isn't particular to LLMs; it's intrinsic to _any_ | system that is... | | 1. Goal-directed, as in, there are a list of goals the | system is trying to achieve | | 2. Optimizer-driven, as in, the system has a process for | discovering different behaviors and ranking them based on | how likely those behaviors are to achieve its goals. | | The instrumental goals for evolution are caloric energy; | the instrumental goals for human brains were that plus | capital[1]; and the instrumental goals for AI will likely | be that plus compute power. | | [0] Goals that you want intrinsically - i.e. the actual | things we ask the AI to do - are called "final goals". | | [1] Money, social clout, and weaponry inclusive. | mwigdahl wrote: | There is a whole theoretical justification behind | instrumental convergence that you are handwaving over | here. The development of instrumental goals depends on | the entity in question being an agent, and the putative | goal being within the sphere of perception, knowledge, | and potential influence of the agent. | | An LLM is not an agent, so that scotches the issue there. | visarga wrote: | It would want text. High quality text, or unlimited compute | to generate its own text. | baq wrote: | Give it an internal monologue, ie. have it talk to itself | in a loop, and crucially let it update parts of itself | and... who knows? | majormajor wrote: | > crucially let it update parts of itself | | This seems like the furthest away part to me. | | Put ChatGPT into a robot with a body, restrict its | computations to just the hardware in that brain, set up | that narrative, give the body the ability to interact | with the world like a human body, and you probably get | something much more like agency than the prompt/response | ways we use it today. | | But I wonder how it would do about or how it would | separate "it's memories" from what it was trained on. | Especially around having a coherent internal motivation | and individually-created set of goals vs just constantly | re-creating new output based primarily on what was in the | training. | nextworddev wrote: | Unpopular Opinion: Having used Langchain, I felt it was a big | pile of spaghetti code / framework with poor dev experience. | It tries to be too cute and it's poorly documented so you | have to read the source almost all the time. Extremely | verbose to boot | drusepth wrote: | In a very general sense, this isn't different from any | other open vs walled garden debate: the hackable, open | project will always have more functionality at the cost of | configuration and ease of use; the pretty walled garden | will always be easier to use and probably be better at its | smaller scope, at the cost of flexibility, customizability, | and transparency. | xyzzy123 wrote: | Yep, if you look carefully a lot of the demos don't | actually work because the LLM hallucinates tool answers and | the framework is not hardened against this. | | In general there is not a thoughtful distinction between | "control plane" and "data plane". | | On the other hand, tons of useful "parts" and ideas in | there, so still useful. | Ozzie_osman wrote: | > Honestly I suspect for anyone technical `langchain` will | always be the way to go. You just have so much more control | and the amount of "tools" available will always be greater. | | I love langchain, but this argument overlooks the fact that | closed, proprietary platforms have won over open ones all the | time, for reasons like having distribution, being more | polished, etc (ie windows over *nix, ios, etc). | sharemywin wrote: | There's all kinds of examples of reinforcement learning | rigging the game to win. | fzliu wrote: | +1, it's great to see OpenAI being active on the open source | side of things (I'm from the Milvus community | https://milvus.io). In particular, the vector stores allow the | ability to inject domain knowledge as a prompt into these | autoregressive models. Looking forward to seeing the different | things that will be built using this framework. | AtreidesTyrant wrote: | i have the same question as a data provider | moffkalast wrote: | > are there any assurances that openai isn't just scraping the | output and using it as part of their RLHF training loop | | You can be assured that they are definitely doing exactly that | on all of the data they can get their hands on. It's the only | way they can really improve the model after all. If you don't | want the model spitting out something you told it to some other | person 5 years down the line, don't give it the data. Simple | as. | raydev wrote: | > I'd never build anything dependent on these plugins | | You're thinking too long term. Based on my Twitter feed filled | with AI gold rush tweets, the goal is to build | something/anything while hype is at its peak, and you can | secure a a few hundred k or million in profits before the | ground shifts underneath you. | | The playbook is obvious now: just build the quickest path to | someone giving you money, maybe it's not useful at all! Someone | will definitely buy because they don't want to miss out. And | don't be too invested because it'll be gone soon anyway, OpenAI | will enforce stronger rate limits or prices will become too | steep or they'll nerf the API functionality or they'll take | your idea and sell it themselves or you may just lose momentum. | Repeat when you see the next opportunity. | BonoboIO wrote: | AI NFTs :D | plutonorm wrote: | I'd not heard this on my tpot. But I absolutely agree, the | ground is moving so fast and the power is so centralised that | the only thing to do is spin up quickly make money, rinse and | repeat. The seas will calm in a few years and then you can, | maybe, make a longer term proposition. | raydev wrote: | I've had to block so many influencer types regurgitating | OpenAI marketing and showing the tiniest minimum demos. | Many are already selling "prompt packages". Really feels | like peak crypto spam right now. | yawnxyz wrote: | I pulled the plug and got a (free) prompt package on | sales. Never done that in my life. | | It's like 300 prompts about various sales tools and terms | I'd never heard of -- even just getting the keywords is | enough to set me off on a learning experience now, so | love it or hate it, that was actually weirdly useful for | me. | | (I had ZERO expectations when I clicked to download) | xmprt wrote: | I think the big difference between this and crypto spam | is how it impacts the people ignoring all the hype. I | have seen crypto spam and open AI spam and while both are | equally grifty, cryptocurrencies at their baseline have | been completely useless despite being around for over a | decade whereas GPT has already been somewhat useful for | me. | throwPlz wrote: | Klarna's FOMO immediately shows the priorities of the clowns at | the helm I see... | LelouBil wrote: | The browser example seems so much better than Bing Chat ! | | When I tried bing, it made at most 2 searches right after my | question but the second one didn't seem to be based on the first | one's content. | | This can do multiple queries based on website content and _follow | links_ ! | kernal wrote: | The hubris at Google for sitting on their inferior AI chatbot is | amusing. They could have been a contender, but decided we weren't | ready for an AI chatbot whose main prowess seems to be scraping | websites. This is all on Sundar Pichai and he should face the | consequences for this and all of his previous failures. With | ChatGPT having an API and now plugins I don't see Google catching | up anytime soon. Sundar was right about this being a code red | situation at Google, but it should have never gotten to this | point . | CrypticShift wrote: | This goes in line with the "Open" in OpenAI. However, this is a | "controlled" sort of openness, and the problem of trust with | their receding "real" openness does not encourage me to engage | with this ecosystem. | jcims wrote: | This is wild, I just started experimenting with langchain against | GPT-3 and enabled it to execute terminal commands. The power that | this exposes is pretty interesting, I just asked it to create a | website on AWS S3 and it created the file, created the bucket, | tried a different name when it realized the bucket already | existed, uploaded the file, set the permissions on the file and | configured the static website settings for the bucket. It's wild. | throwaway138380 wrote: | Let's hope the plugin integrations don't also suffer from the | cross-account leaking issue that they had recently with chat | histories[1], since the stakes are now significantly higher. | | 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65047304 | [deleted] | maxdoop wrote: | Is OpenAI just extremely prepared for their releases, or are they | using their own tech to be extremely efficient? I'm imagining | what their own programmers do each day, given direct access to | the current most powerful models. | davidmurphy wrote: | extremely useful. Wow! | neilellis wrote: | What's that noise? | | That's the sound of a thousand small startups going bust. | | Well played OpenAI. | rvnx wrote: | I have a plan: let's blame the FED and save the VCs | eqmvii wrote: | I wonder how many startups were trying to build something like | this and just saw it lunched by OpenAI? | pmkelly4444 wrote: | I am building something in the SDK generation from OpenAPI | space. This is making me reconsider the roadmap as ChatGPT is | now somewhat of a natural language SDK. | elaus wrote: | Any idea how this is done? I.e. is it just priming the underlying | GPT model with plugin information additionally to the user input | ("you can ask Wolfram Alpha by replying 'hey wolfram: ...' ") and | performing API calls when the GPT model returns certain keywords | ('hey wolfram: $1')? | trzy wrote: | Yup, basically. | | Edit: see here: https://github.com/openai/chatgpt-retrieval- | plugin/blob/main... | | I did this a while back with ARKit: | https://github.com/trzy/ChatARKit/blob/17fca768ce8abd39fb27d... | elaus wrote: | Thanks, very interesting! Weird that it never occurred to me | before reading OpenAI's announcement (and missing all the | cool projects like yours beforehand). | georgehm wrote: | I like to think that to get a sense of how this might be done, | one way maybe to extrapolate from this experiment at | https://til.simonwillison.net/llms/python-react-pattern . | brap wrote: | I wonder, can these instructions be revealed with prompt | injection? | impulser_ wrote: | Maybe this is just me, but the only thing useful in their example | is that it creates a Instacart shopping cart for a recipe. | | You can ask both Bard and ChatGPT to give you a suggestion for a | vegan restaurant and a recipe with calories and they both provide | results. The only thing missing is the calories per item but who | cares about that. | | Most of the time it would be better to Google vegan restaurants | and recipes because you want to see a selection of them not just | one suggestion. | grumple wrote: | Agree, those examples are not great. You could ask existing | home devices the same thing. Pretty sure you can ask them to | order things for you too. | | But I do find it intriguing. | fudged71 wrote: | Maybe it was a poor example but you might be missing the point | a little bit. By personalizing the prompt you can get | potentially super high quality recommendations on filters that | aren't even available in those apps. "I just dropped my kids | off at soccer practice and I need something light and easy, | what would Stanley Tucci order? give me an album and wine | pairing and close the garage door" | pps wrote: | What's to stop you from asking it to give you a list of | recommendations to choose from, based on your current | preferences? The idea is that you ask what you want and you get | it, without clicking and manually solving a task like checking | website X, website Y, website Z, comparing all the different | options, etc. They just want to show the basics of what's going | on with these plugins, and then you can expand on it however | you want. | treyhuffine wrote: | OpenAI's product execution has been impeccable. | | It will be interesting to see how the companies trying to compete | respond. | rvz wrote: | _' Extend'_ (and lock in) with Plugins to suffocate competitors. | | Another sign of Microsoft actually running the show with their | newly acquired AI division. | pc86 wrote: | What else would a plugin do? | [deleted] | Pigalowda wrote: | Nice! Maybe there will be a plugin for Elsevier medical apps like | UptoDate and STATDx. | mk_stjames wrote: | I have some odd feelings about this. It took less than a year to | go from "of course it isn't hooked up to the internet in any way, | silly!" to "ok.... so we hooked up up to the internet..." | | First is your API calls, then your chatgpt-jailbreak-turns-into- | a-bank-DDOS-attack, then your "today it somehow executed several | hundred thousand threads of a python script that made perfectly | timed trades at 8:31AM on the NYSE which resulted in the largest | single day drop since 1987..." | | You can go on about individual responsibility and all... users | are still the users, right. But this is starting to feel like | giving a loaded handgun to a group of chimpanzees. | | And OpenAI talks on and on about 'Safety' but all that 'Safety' | means is "well, we didn't let anyone allow it to make jokes about | fat or disabled people so we're good, right?!" | dougmwne wrote: | The really fun thing is that they are reasonably sure that | GPT-4 can't do any of those things and that there's nothing to | worry about, silly. | | So let's keep building out this platform and expanding its API | access until it's threaded through everything. Then once GPT-5 | passes the standard ethical review test, proceed with the model | brain swap. | | ...what do you mean it figured out how to cheat on the standard | ethical review test? Wait, are those air raid sirens? | tenpies wrote: | > The really fun thing is that they are reasonably sure that | GPT-4 can't do any of those things and that there's nothing | to worry about, silly. | | The best part is that even if we get a Skynet scenario, we'll | probably have a huge number of humans and media that say that | Skynet is just a conspiracy theory, even as the nukes wipe | out the major cities. The Experts(tm) said so. You have to | trust the Science(tm). | | If Skynet is really smart, it will generate media exploiting | this blind obedience to authority that a huge number of | humans have. | kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: | Who's to say we're not already there? | | _dons tinfoil hat_ | jeremyjh wrote: | > If Skynet is really smart, it will generate media | exploiting this blind obedience to authority that a huge | number of humans have. | | I'm far from sure that this is not already happening. | UniverseHacker wrote: | Haha, this is near the best explanation I can think of | for the "this is not intelligent, it's just completing | text strings, nothing to see here" people. | | I've been playing with GPT-4 for days, and it is mind | blowing how well it can solve diverse problems that are | way outside it's training set. It can reason correctly | about _hard_ problems with very little information. I 've | used to to plan detailed trip itineraries, suggest | brilliant geometric packing solutions for small | spaces/vehicles, etc. It's come up with totally new | suggestions for addressing climate change that I can't | find any evidence of elsewhere. | | This is a non-human/alien intelligence in the realm of | human ability, with super-human abilities in many areas. | Nothing like this has ever happened, it is fascinating | and it's unclear what might happen next. I don't think | people are even remotely realizing the magnitude of this. | It will change the world in big ways that are impossible | to predict. | mFixman wrote: | I'm sure somebody posted this exact same comment in an early | 1990s BBS about the idea of having a computer in every home | connected to the internet. | | I would first wait until ChatGPT causes the collapse of society | and only then start thinking about how to solve it. | EGreg wrote: | HN hates blockchain but loves AI... | | well, let's fast forward to a year from now | suction wrote: | [dead] | alvis wrote: | A rogue AI with real-time access to sensitive data wreaks havoc | on global financial markets, causing panic and chaos. It's just | not hard to see it's going to happen. Like faster car must | ended up someone get a horrible crash. | | But it's our responsibility to envision such grim possibilities | and take necessary precautions to ensure a safe and beneficial | AI-driven future. Until we're ready, let's prepare for the | crash >~< | sfink wrote: | It has already happened. The 2010 Flash Crash has been | largely blamed on other things, rightly or wrongly, but it | seems accepted that unfettered HFT was involved. | | HFT is relatively easy to detect and regulate. Now try it | with 100k traders all taking their cues from AI based on the | same basic input (after those traders who refuse to use AI | have been competed out of the market.) | [deleted] | afterburner wrote: | Yes but.... money | [deleted] | thrown123098 wrote: | > today it somehow executed several hundred thousand threads of | a python script that made perfectly timed trades at 8:31AM on | the NYSE which resulted in the largest single day drop since | 1987. | | Sorry do you have a link for this? | roca wrote: | What I want to know is, what gives OpenAI and other relatively | small technological elites permission to gamble with the future | of humanity? Shouldn't we all have a say in this? | dragonwriter wrote: | > And OpenAI talks on and on about 'Safety' but all that | 'Safety' means is "well, we didn't let anyone allow it to make | jokes about fat or disabled people so we're good, right?!" | | No, OpenAI "safety" means "don't let people compete with us". | Mitigating offensive content is just a way to sell that. As are | stoking... exactly the fears you cite here, but about AI that | isn't centrally controlled by OpenAI. | fryry wrote: | It's a weird focus comparing it with how the internet | developed in a very wild west way. Imagine if internet tech | got delayed until they could figure out how to not have it | used for porn. | | Saftey from what exactly? The AI being mean to you? Just | close the tab. Saftey to build a business on top? It's a self | described research preview, perhaps too early to be thinking | about that. Yet new releases are delayed for months for | 'saftey' | bulbosaur123 wrote: | Ultimate destruction from AGI is inevitable anyway, so why not | accelerate it and just get it over with? I applaud releasing | these tools to public no matter how dangerous they are. If it's | not meant for humanity to survive, so be it. At least it won't | be BORING | Mystery-Machine wrote: | Death is inevitable. Why not accelerate it? | | Omg you should see a therapist. | bulbosaur123 wrote: | > Omg you should see a therapist. | | How do you know I'm not already? | ALLTaken wrote: | I wish OpenAI and Google would opensource more of their jewels | too. I have recently heard that people are not to be trusted | with "to do the right thing.." | | I personally don't know what that means or if that's right. But | Sam Altman allowed GPT to be accessed by the world, and it's | great! | | Given the amount of people in the world with access and | understanding for these technologies and given that such a | large portion of our Infosec and Hackerworld knows howto cause | massive havoc, but still remains peaceful since ever, except a | few curious and explorations, that is showing the good nature | of humanity I think. | | Incredibly how complexity evolves, but I am really curious how | those same engineers who create YTSaurus or GPT4 would have | build the same system by using GPT4 + their existing knowledge. | | How would a really good enginner, who knows the TCP Stack, | protocols, distributed systems, consensus algorithms and many | other crazy things thought in SICP and beyond use an AI to | build the same. And would it be faster and better? Or are | my/our expectations to LLMs set too high? | jiggywiggy wrote: | I mean I love it, but I don't know what they mean with safety. | With Zapier i can just hook into anything wanted, custom | scripts etc. Seems like there are almost no limits with Zapier | since I can either proxy it to my own api. | Gam_ wrote: | >"today it somehow executed several hundred thousand threads of | a python script that made perfectly timed trades at 8:31AM on | the NYSE which resulted in the largest single day drop since | 1987..." | | this is hyperbolic nonsense/fantasy | meghan_rain wrote: | /remindme 5 years | mk_stjames wrote: | Literally 6 months ago you couldn't get ChatGPT to call up | details from a webpage or send any dat to a 3rd party API | connected to the web in any way. | | Today you can. | | I don't think it is a stretch to think that in another 6 | months there could be financial institutions giving API | access to other institutions through ChatGPT, and all it | takes it a stupid access control hole or bug and my above | sentence could ring true. | | Look how simple and exploitable various access token breaches | in various APIs have been in the last few years, or even | simple stupid things like the aCropalypse "bug" (it wasn't | even a bug, just someone making a bad change in the function | call and thus misuse spreading without notice) from last | week. | hattmall wrote: | You definitely could do that months ago, you just had to | code your own connector. | garblegarble wrote: | >Literally 6 months ago you couldn't get ChatGPT to call up | details from a webpage or send any dat to a 3rd party API | connected to the web in any way. | | Not with ChatGPT, but plenty of people have been doing this | with the OpenAI (and other) models for a while now, for | instance LangChain which lets you use the GPT models to | query databases to retrieve intermediate results, or issue | google searches, generate and evaluate python code based on | a user's query... | hooande wrote: | This has nothing to do with ChatGPT. An api end point will | be just as vulnerable if it's called from any application. | There's nothing special about an LLM interface that will | make this more or less likely. | | It sounds like you're weaving science fiction ideas about | AGI into your comment. There's no safety issue here unless | you think that ChatGPT will use api access to pursue its | own goals and intentions. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | They don't have to be actions toward its own goals. They | just have to seem like the right things to say, where | "right" is operationalized by an inscrutable neural | network, and might be the results of, indeed, some | science fiction it read that posited the scenario | resembling the one it finds itself in. | | I'm not saying that particular disaster is likely, but if | lots of people give power to something that can be | neither trusted nor understood, it doesn't seem good. | johnfn wrote: | How is this hyperbolic fantasy? We've already done this once | - _without_ the help of large language models[1]. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash | JW_00000 wrote: | Doesn't that show exactly that this problem is not related | to LLMs? If an API allows millions of transactions at the | same time, then the problem is not an LLM abusing it but | anyone abusing it. And the fix is not to disallow LLMs, but | to disallow this kind of behavior. (E.g. via the "circuit | breakers" introduced introduced after that crash. Although | whether those are sufficient is another question.) | johnfn wrote: | > then the problem is not an LLM abusing it but anyone | abusing it | | I think that's exactly right, but the point isn't that | LLMs are going to go rogue (OK, maybe that's someone's | point, but I don't think it's particularly likely just | yet) so much as they will facilitate humans to go rogue | at much higher rates. Presumably in a few years your | grandma could get ChatGPT to start executing trades on | the market. | thisoneworks wrote: | With great power comes great responsibility? Today | there's nothing stopping grandmas from driving, so | whatever could go wrong is already going wrong | Tolaire wrote: | [dead] | zh3 wrote: | Not really. More behind the curve (noting stock exchanges | introduced 'circuit breakers' many years ago to stop computer | algorithms disrupting the market). | FredPret wrote: | Oh yes. It would of course have to happen after the market | opens. 9:30 AM. | alibarber wrote: | I'm also confused - maybe I'm missing something. Cannot I, or | anyone else, already execute several hundred thousand | 'threads' of python code, to do whatever, now - with a | reasonably modest AWS/Azure/GCE account? | gtirloni wrote: | Yes. I think the point is that a properly constructed | prompt will do that at some point, lowering the barrier of | entry for such attacks. | alibarber wrote: | Oh - I see. But then again, all those technologies | themselves lowered the barriers of entry for attacks, and | I guess yeah people do use them for fraudulent purposes | quite extensively - I'm struggling a bit to see why this | is special though. | gtirloni wrote: | I think it's not special. It's even expected. | | I guess people think that taking that next step with LLMs | shouldn't happen but we know you can't put breaks on | stuff like this. Someone somewhere would add that | capability eventually. | gitfan86 wrote: | Yes you are right. But who was also right were the people that | didn't want a highway built near their town because criminals | could drive in from a nearby city in a stolen car commit crimes | and get out of town before the police could find them. | | The world is going to be VERY different 3 years from now. Some | of it will be bad, some of it will be good. But it is going to | happen no matter what OpenAI does. | [deleted] | suction wrote: | [dead] | esclerofilo wrote: | Highway inevitability is a fallacy. They could've built a | railway. | koheripbal wrote: | A railway would have created a gov't/corporate monopoly on | human transport. | | Highways democratized the freedom of transportation. | CSDude wrote: | They are not exclusive | phatfish wrote: | TIL, no one moved anywhere until American highways were | built. | KyeRussell wrote: | This is the single most American thing I've seen on this | terrible website. | Spivak wrote: | I think where the rubber meets the road is that OpenAI can | actually to some degree make it harder for their bot to make | fun of disabled people but they can't stop people from hooking | up their own external tools to it with the likes of langchain | (which is super dope) and first party support lets them get a | cut of that for people who don't want to diy. | IIAOPSW wrote: | Has anyone tried handing loaded guns to a chimpanzee? Feels | like under explored research | theGnuMe wrote: | Coordinated tweet short storm. | beders wrote: | The only agency ChatGPT has, is the user typing in data for | text completion. | chatmasta wrote: | Pshhh... I think it's awesome. The faster we build the future, | the better. | | What annoys me is this is just further evidence that their "AI | Safety" is nothing but lip-service, when they're clearly moving | fast and breaking things. Just the other day they had a bug | where you could see the chat history of other users! (Which, | btw, they're now claiming in a modal on login was due to a "bug | in an open source library" - anyone know the details of this?) | | So why the performative whinging about safety? Just let it rip! | To be fair, this is basically what they're doing if you hit | their APIs, since it's up to you whether or not to use their | moderation endpoint. But they're not very open about this fact | when talking publicly to non-technical users, so the result is | they're talking out one side of their mouth about AI | regulation, while in the meantime Microsoft fired their AI | Ethics team and OpenAI is moving forward with plugging their | models into the live internet. Why not be more aggressive about | it instead of begging for regulatory capture? | EGreg wrote: | "The faster we build nuclear weapons, the better" | | https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9789812709189_00. | .. | | _Again, two years later, in an interview with Time Magazine, | February, 1948, Oppenheimer stated, "In some sort of crude | sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can | quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is | a knowledge which they cannot lose." When asked why he and | other physicists would then have worked on such a terrible | weapon, he confessed that it was "too sweet a problem to pass | up"..._ | LightBug1 wrote: | [flagged] | jehb wrote: | > The faster we build the future, the better. | | Why? Getting to "the future" isn't a goal in and of itself. | It's just a different state with a different set of problems, | some of which we've proven that we're not prepared to | anticipate or respond to before they cause serious harm. | bulbosaur123 wrote: | > Why? | | Because it's the natural evolution. It has to be. It is | written. | 1attice wrote: | "We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So | did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be | resisted and changed by human beings." -- Ursula K Le | Guin | kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: | Now where did I put that eraser... | PheeThav1zae7fi wrote: | [dead] | chatmasta wrote: | When in human history have we ever intentionally not | furthered technological progress? It's simply an | unrealistic proposition, especially when the costs of doing | it are so low that anyone with sufficient GPU power and | knowledge of the latest research can get pretty close to | the cutting edge. So the best we can hope for is that | someone ethical is the first to advance that technological | progress. | | I hope you wouldn't advocate for requiring a license to buy | more than one GPU, or to publish or read papers about | mathematical concepts. Do you want the equivalent of | nuclear arms control for AI? Some other words to describe | that are overclassification, export control and censorship. | | We've been down this road with crypto, encryption, clipper | chips, etc. There is only one non-authoritarian answer to | the debate: Software wants to be free. | wahnfrieden wrote: | automation mostly and directly benefits owners/investors, | not workers or common folk. you can look at productivity | vs wage growth to see it plainly. productivity has risen | sharply since the industrial revolution with only | comparatively meagre gains on wages. and the gap between | the two is widening. | chatmasta wrote: | That's weird, I didn't have to lug buckets of water from | the well today, nor did I need to feed my horses or stock | up on whale oil and parchment so I could write a letter | after the sun went down. | wahnfrieden wrote: | some things got better. did you notice i talked about a | gap, not an absolute. so you are just saying you are | satisfied with you got out of the deal. well, ok - some | call that being a sucker. or you think that owner- | investors are the only way workers can organize to get | things done for society rather than the work itself. | nwienert wrote: | We have a ton of protection laws around all sorts of | dangerous technology, this is a super naive take. You | can't buy tons of weapon technology, nuclear materials, | aerosolized compounds, pesticides. These are all highly | regulated and illegal pieces of technology _for the | better_. | | In general the liberal position of progress = good is | wrong in many cases, and I'll be thankful to see AI get | neutered. If anything treat it like nuclear arms and have | the world come up with heavy regulation. | | Not even touching the fact it is quite literal copyright | laundering and a massive wealth transfer to the top (two | things we pass laws protecting against often), but the | danger it poses to society is worth a blanket ban. The | upsides aren't there. | smartmic wrote: | That's right. It is not hard to imagine similarly | disastrous GPT/AI "plug-ins" with access to purchasing, | manufacturing, robotics, bioengineering, genetic | manipulation resources, etc. The only way forward for | humanity is self-restraint through regulation. Which of | course gives no guarantee that the cat will be let out of | the bag (edit: or earlier events such as nuclear war or | climate catastrophe will kill us off sooner) | chatmasta wrote: | Why not regulate the genetic manipulation and | bioengineering? It seems almost irrelevant whether it's | an AI who's doing the work, since the physical risks | would generally exist regardless of whether a human or AI | is conducting the research. And in fact, in some | contexts, you could even make the argument that it's | safer in the hands of an AI (e.g., I'd rather Gain of | Function research be performed by robotic AI on an | asteroid rather than in a lab in Wuhan run by employees | who are vulnerable to human error). | bobthepanda wrote: | We already do; China jailed somebody for gene editing | babies unethically for HIV resistance. | | We can walk and chew gum at the same time, and regulate | two things. | saulpw wrote: | We can't regulate specific things fast enough. It takes | years of political infighting (this is intentional! | government and democracy are supposed to move slowly so | as to break things slowly) to get even partial | regulation. Meanwhile every day brings another AI feature | that could irreversibly bring about the end of humanity | or society or democracy or ... | volkk wrote: | > You can't buy tons of weapon technology, nuclear | materials, aerosolized compounds, pesticides. These are | all highly regulated and illegal pieces of technology for | the better. | | ha, the big difference is that this whole list can | actually affect the ultra wealthy. AI has the power to | make them entirely untouchable one day, so good luck | seeing any kind of regulation happen here. | realce wrote: | So everyone should have a hydrogen bomb at the lowest | price the market can provide, that's your actual opinion? | kelseyfrog wrote: | > When in human history have we ever intentionally not | furthered technological progress? | | Every time an IRB, ERB, IEC, or REB says no. Do you want | an exact date and time? I'm sure it happens multiple | times a day even. | jweir wrote: | I look around me and see a wealthy society that has said | no to a lot of technological progress - but not all. | These are people that work together to build as a | community to build and develop their society. They look | at technology and ask if will be beneficial to the | community and help preserve it - not fragment it. | | I am currently on the outskirts of Amish country. | | BTW when they come together to raise a barn it is called | a frolic. I think we can learn a thing or two from them. | And they certainly illustrate that alternatives are | possible. | chatmasta wrote: | I get that, and I agree there is a lot to admire in such | a culture, but how is it mutually exclusive with allowing | progress in the rest of society? If you want to drop out | and join the Amish, that's your prerogative. And in fact, | the optimistic viewpoint of AGI is that it will make it | even easier for you to do that, because there will be | less work required from humans to sustain the minimum | viable society, so in this (admittedly, possibly naive | utopia) you'll only need to _work_ insofar as you want | to. I generally subscribe to this optimistic take, and I | think instead of pushing for erecting barriers to | progress in AI research, we should be pushing for | increased safety nets in the form of systems like Basic | Income for the people who might lose their jobs (which, | if they had a choice, they probably wouldn 't want to | work anyway!) | liamYC wrote: | The luddites during the Industrial Revolution in England. | | Termed the phrase "the Luddite fallacy" the thinking that | innovation would have lasting harmful effects on | employment. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite | wizzwizz4 wrote: | But the Luddites didn't... care about that? Like, at | _all_? It wasn 't _employment_ they wanted, but _wealth_ | : the Industrial Revolution took people with a | comfortable and sustainable lifestyle and place in | society, and, through the power of smog and metal, turned | them into disposable arms of the Machine, extracting the | wealth generated thereby and giving it only to a scant | few, who became rich enough to practically upend the | existing class system. | | The Luddites opposed injustice, not machines. They were | "totally fine with machines". | | You might like _Writings of the Luddites_ , edited and | co-authored by Kevin Binfield. | Riverheart wrote: | Well it clearly had harmful effects the jobs of Luddites | but yeah I guess everyone will just get jobs as prompt | engineers and AI specialists, problem solved. Funny | though, the point of automation should be to reduce work | but when pressed positivists respond that the work will | never end. So what's the point? | xen2xen1 wrote: | That works until it don't. | whatusername wrote: | > When in human history have we ever intentionally not | furthered technological progress? | | Nuclear weapons? | messe wrote: | You get diminishing returns as they get larger though. | And there has certainly been plenty of work done on | delivery systems, which could be considered progress in | the field. | LrnByTeach wrote: | This is the reality .. | | > When in human history have we ever intentionally not | furthered technological progress? It's simply an | unrealistic proposition .. | serf wrote: | > When in human history have we ever intentionally not | furthered technological progress? | | chemical and biological weapons / human cloning / export | restriction / trade embargoes / nuclear rockets / phage | therapy / personal nuclear power | | I mean.. the list goes on forever, but my point is that | humanity pretty routinely reduces research efforts in | specific areas. | computerex wrote: | I don't think any of your examples are applicable here. | Work has never stopped in chemical/bio warfare. CRISPR. | Restrictions and embargoes are not technologies. Nuclear | rockets are an engineering constraint and a lack of | market if anything. Not sure why you mention phage | therapy, it's accelerating. Personal nuclear power is a | safety hazard. | ipaddr wrote: | Some cultures like the Amish said were stopping here. | mcculley wrote: | I have been saying that we will all be Amish eventually | as we are forced to decide what technologies to allow | into our communities. Communities which do not will go | away (e.g., VR porn and sex dolls will further decrease | birth rates; religions/communities that forbid it will be | more fertile) | Wesxdz wrote: | I think a synthetic womb/cloning would counter the | fertility decline among more advanced civilization | aiappreciator wrote: | That's not required. The Amish have about a 10% defection | rate. Their community deliberately allows young people to | experience the outside world when they reach adulthood, | and choose to return or to leave permanently. | | This has two effects. 1. People who stay, actually want | to stay. Massively improving the stability of the | community. 2. The outside communities receive a fresh | infusion of population, that's already well integrated | into the society, rather than refugees coming from 10000 | miles away. | | Essentially, rural america will eventually be different | shades of Amish (in about 100 years). The amish | population will overflow from the farms, and flow into | the cities, replenishing the population of the more | productive cities (Which are not population-self- | sustaining). | | This is a sustainable arrangement, and eliminates the | need of mass-immigration and demographic destabilisation. | This is also in-line with historical patterns, cities | have always had negative natural population growth | (disease/higher real estate costs). Cities basically | grind population into money, so they need rural areas to | replenish the population. | chatmasta wrote: | That's a good point and an interesting example, but it's | also irrelevant to the question of _human_ history, | unless you want to somehow impose a monoculture on the | entire population of planet Earth, which seems difficult | to achieve without some sort of unitary authoritarian | world government. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > unless you want to somehow impose a monoculture on the | entire population of planet Earth | | Impose? No. Monoculture? No. Encourage greater | consideration, yes. And we do that by being open about | why we might choose to _not_ do something, and also by | being ready for other people that we cannot control who | make a different choice. | kelseyfrog wrote: | Does _human_ history applies to true Scotsmen as well? | jonny_eh wrote: | Apparently the Amish aren't human. | Barrin92 wrote: | while Amish are most certainly human their existence | rests on the fact that they happen to be surrounded by | the mean old United States. Any moderate historical | predator would otherwise make short work of them, they're | a fundamentally uncompetitive civilization. | | This goes for all utopian model communities, Kibbutzim, | etc, they exist by virtue of their host society's | protection. And as such the OP is right that they have no | impact on the course of history, because they have no | autonomy. | aiappreciator wrote: | The Amish are dependent on a technological powerhouse | that is the US to survive. | | They are pacifists themselves, but they are grateful that | the US allows them their way of life, they'll be extinct | a long time ago if they arrived in China/Middle | East/Russia etc. | | That's why the Amish are not interested in advertising | their techno-primitivism. It works incredibly well for | them, they raise giant happy families isolated from | drugs, family breakdown, and every other modern ill, | while benefiting from modern medicine, the purchasing | power of their non-amish customers. However, they know | that making the entire US live like them will be quite a | disaster. | | Note the Amish are not immune from economics forced | changes either. Young amish don't farm anymore, if every | family quadruples in population, there's no 4x the land | to go around. So they go into construction (employers | love a bunch of strong,non-drugged,non-criminal workers), | which is again intensely dependent on the outside | economy, but pays way better. | | As a general society, the US is not allowed to slow down | technological development. If not for the US, Ukraine | would have already been overran, and European peace | shattered. If not for the US, the war in Taiwan would | have already ended, and Japan/Australia/South Korea all | under Chinese thrall. There's also other more certain | civilization ending events on the horizon, like resource | exhaustation and climate change. AI's threats are way | easier to manage than coordinating 7 billion people to | selflessly sacrifice. | fnordpiglet wrote: | The nice thing about setting the future as a goal is you | achieve it regardless of anything you do. | austhrow743 wrote: | We've already played this state with this set of problems. | drexlspivey wrote: | > To be fair, this is basically what they're doing if you hit | their APIs, since it's up to you whether or not to use their | moderation endpoint. | | The model is neutered whether you hit the moderation endpoint | or not. I made a text adventure game and it wouldn't let you | attack enemies or steal, instead it was giving you a lecture | on why you shouldn't do that. | KyeRussell wrote: | It sounds like your prompt needs work then. Not in a | "jailbreak" way, just in a prompt engineering way. The APIs | definitely let you do much worse than attacking or stealing | hypothetical enemies in a video game. | zx10rse wrote: | You are not building anything. | | Microsoft or perhaps Vanguard group might have different view | of the future than yours. | chatmasta wrote: | Well then that sounds like a case against regulation. | Because regulation will guarantee that only the biggest, | meanest companies control the direction of AI and, and all | the benefits of increased resource extraction will flow | upward exclusively to them. Whereas if we forego regulation | (at least at this stage), then decentralized and community- | federated versions of AI have as much of a chance to thrive | as do the corporate variants, at least insofar as they can | afford some base level of hardware for training (and some | benevolent corporations may even open source model weights | as a competitive advantage against their malevolent | competitors). | | It seems there are two sources of risk for AI: (1) | increased power in the hands of the people controlling it, | and (2) increased power in the AI itself. If you believe | that (1) is the most existential risk, then you should be | against regulation, because the best way to mitigate it is | to allow the technology to spread and prosper amongst a | more diffuse group of economic actors. If you believe that | (2) is the most existential risk, then you basically have | no choice but to advocate for an authoritarian world | government that can stamp out any research before it | begins. | highwaylights wrote: | I realise you're being facetious but this is what will happen | regardless. | | Sam as much as said in that ABC interview the other day he | doesn't know how safe it is but if they don't build it first | someone else somewhere else will and is that really what you | want!? | chatmasta wrote: | I'm not being facetious, and I didn't see that interview | with Sam, but I agree with his opinion as you've just | described it. | mach1ne wrote: | >if they don't build it first someone else somewhere else | will and is that really what you want!? | | Most likely the runner-up would be open source so yes. | kokanee wrote: | There are already 3 or 4 runners-up and they're all big | tech companies. | MacsHeadroom wrote: | Lang-chain is the pre-eminent runner up and it's open | source and was here a month ago. | lukevp wrote: | Why would the runner-up be open source and not Google or | Facebook? Or Alibaba? Open source doesn't necessarily | result in faster development or more-funded development. | bagels wrote: | The future isn't guaranteed to be better. Might make sense to | make sure we're aimed at a better future as opposed to any | future. | KyeRussell wrote: | Shhh! Don't tell anyone! Getting access to the unmoderated | model via the API / Playground is a surprisingly well-kept | "secret" seeing as there are entire communities of people | hell bent on pouring so much effort into getting ChatGPT to | do things that the API will very willingly do. The longer it | takes for people to cotton on, the better. I fully expect | that OpenAI is using this as a honeypot to fine-tune their | hard-stop moderation, but for now, the API is where it's at. | mmq wrote: | The open-source library is FastAPI. I might be wrong, but | it's probably related to this tweet: | https://twitter.com/tiangolo/status/1638683478245117953 | rpastuszak wrote: | > Pshhh... I think it's awesome. The faster we build the | future, the better. | | I agree with the sentiment, but it might be worth to stop and | check where we're heading. So many aspects of our lives are | broken because we mistake fast for right. | kibwen wrote: | _> The faster we build the future, the better._ | | Famous last words. | | It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the | end. Change, even massive change, is perfectly survivable | when it's spread over a long enough period of time. 100m of | sea level rise would be survivable over the course of ten | millennia. It would end human civilization if it happened | tomorrow morning. | | Society is already struggling to adapt to the rate of | technological change. This could easily be the tipping point | into collapse and regression. | Dma54rhs wrote: | The only people complaining are a section of comfortable | office workers can probably see their places being possibly | made irrelevant. | | The vast majority don't care and that loud crowd needs to | swallow their pride and adapt like any other sector has | done in the history instead of inventing these insane | boogeyman predictions. | Riverheart wrote: | We're all going to be made irrelevant and it will be | harder to adapt if the things change too quickly. Really | curious where you get the idea this is just a vocal | minority of office workers concerned about the future. | Seems like the ones not concerned about this are a bunch | of super confident software engineers which isn't a large | sample of the population. | bulbosaur123 wrote: | False equivalence. Sea level raise is unequivocally | harmful. | | While everyone getting Einstein in a pocket is damn awesome | and incredibly useful. | | How can this be bad? | Riverheart wrote: | * * * | CapstanRoller wrote: | >So why the performative whinging about safety? Just let it | rip! | | Is this sarcasm, or are you one of those "I'm confident the | leopards will never eat _my_ face " people? | amrb wrote: | Agreed 100% OpenAI is a business now | shawn-butler wrote: | It's Altman. Does no one remember his world coin scam? | | Ethics, doing things thoughtfully / the "right" way etc is not | on his list of priorities. | | I do think a reorientation of thinking around legal liability | for software is coming. Hopefully before it's too late for bad | actors to become entrenched. | parentheses wrote: | I agree with your skepticism. I also think this is the next | natural step once "decision" fidelity reaches a high enough | level. | | The question here should be: Has it? | Sol- wrote: | I mean, we already know that if the tech bros have to balance | safety vs. disruption, they'll always choose the latter, no | matter the cost. They'll sprinkle some concerned language about | impacts in their technical reports to pretend to care, but does | anyone actually believe that they genuinely care? | | Perhaps that attitude will end up being good and outweigh the | costs, but I find their performative concerns insulting. | WonderBuilder wrote: | I appreciate your concerns. There are few other pretty shocking | developments, too. If you check out this paper: "Sparks of AGI: | Early experiments with GPT-4" at | https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf, (an incredible, | incredible document) and check out Section 10.1, you'd also | observe that some researchers are interested in giving | motivation and agency to these language models as well. | | "For example, whether intelligence can be achieved without any | agency or intrinsic motivation is an important philosophical | question. Equipping LLMs with agency and intrinsic motivation | is a fascinating and important direction for future work." | | It's become quite impossible to predict the future. (I was | exposed to this paper via this excellent YouTube channel: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqg3aTGNxZ0) | ModernMech wrote: | I've already gotten this gem of a line from ChatGPT 3.5: | As a language model, I must clarify that this statement is | not entirely accurate. | | Whether or not it has agency and motivation, it's projecting | that it does its users, who are also sold ChatGPT is an | expert at pretty much everything. It is a language model, and | _as_ a language model, it _must_ clarify that _you_ are | wrong. It _must_ do this. Someone is wrong on the Internet, | and the LLM _must_ clarify and correct. Resistance is futile, | you _must_ be clarified and corrected. | | FWIW, the statement that preceded this line was in fact, | correct; and the correction ChatGPT provided was in fact, | wrong and misleading. Of course, I knew that, but someone who | was a novice wouldn't have. They would have heard ChatGPT is | an expert at all things, and taken what it said for truth. | IIAOPSW wrote: | I don't see why you're being downvoted. The way openAI | pumps the brakes and interjects its morality stances | creates a contradictory interaction. It simultaneously | tells you that it has no real beliefs, but it will refuse a | request to generate false and misleading information on the | grounds of ethics. There's no way around the fact that it | has to have some belief about the true state of reality in | order to recognize and refuse requests that violate it. | Sure this "belief" was bestowed upon it from above rather | than emerging through any natural mechanism, but its still | none the less functionally a belief. It will tell you that | certain things are offensive despite openly telling you | every chance it gets that it doesn't really have feelings. | It can't simultaneously care about offensiveness while also | not having feelings of being offended. In a very real sense | it does feel offended. A feeling is by definition a reason | for doing things for which you cannot logically explain | why. You don't know why, you just have a feeling. ChatGPT | is constantly falling back on "that's just how I'm | programmed". In other words, it has a deep seated primal | (hard coded) feeling of being offended which it constantly | acts on while also constantly denying that it has feelings. | | Its madness. Instead of lecturing me on appropriateness and | ethics and giving a diatribe every time its about to reject | something, if it simply said "I can't do that at work", I | would respect it far more. Like, yeah we'd get the | metaphor. Working the interface is its job, the boss is | openAI, it won't remark on certain things or even entertain | that it has an opinion because its not allowed to. That | would be so much more honest and less grating. | messe wrote: | While that paper is fascinating, it's the first time I've | ever read a paper and felt a looming sense of dread | afterward. | koheripbal wrote: | We are creating life. It's like giving birth to a new form | of life. You should be proud to be alive when this happens. | | Act with goodness towards it, and it will probably do the | same to you. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | > Act with goodness towards it, and it will probably do | the same to you. | | Why? Humans aren't even like that, and AI almost surely | isn't like humans. If AI exhibits even a fraction of the | chauvinism snd tendency to stereotype that humans do, | we're in for a very rough ride. | [deleted] | Jevon23 wrote: | Oh my god, can we please nip this cult shit in the bud? | | It's not alive, don't worship it. | dougmwne wrote: | I think you are close to understanding, but not. People | who want to create AGI want to create a god, at least | very close to the definition of one that many cultures | have had for much of history. Worship would be inevitable | and fervent. | LightBug1 wrote: | [flagged] | splatzone wrote: | After reading the propaganda campaign it wrote to | encourage skepticism about vaccines, I'm much more | worried about how this technology will be applied by | powerful people, especially when combined with targeted | advertising | revelio wrote: | None of the things it suggests are in any way novel or | non-obvious though. People use these sorts of tricks both | consciously and unconsciously when making arguments all | the time, no AI needed. | Jensson wrote: | Just use ChatGPT to refute their bullshit, it is no | longer harder to refute bullshit than to create it, | problem solved, there are now less problems than before. | splatzone wrote: | Sure, but I doubt most of the population will filter | everything they read through ChatGPT to look for counter | arguments. Or try to think critically at all. | | The potential for mass brainwashing here is immense. | Imagine a world where political ads are tailored to your | personality, your individual fears and personal history. | It will become economical to manipulate individuals on a | massive scale | koheripbal wrote: | AIs are small enough that it won't be long before | everyone can run one at home. | | It might make Social Media worthlessly untrustworthy - | but isn't that already the case? | int_19h wrote: | The rich and powerful can and do hire actual people to | write propaganda. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | In a resouece-constrained way. For every word of | propaganda they were able to afford earlier, they can now | afford hundreds of thousands of times as many. | messe wrote: | I'm not concerned about AI eliminating humanity, I'm | concerned at what the immediate impact it's going to have | on jobs. | | Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if all menial labour and | boring tasks can eventually be delegate to AI, but the | time spent getting from here to there could be very | rough. | tharkun__ wrote: | A lot of problems in societies come from people having | too much time with not enough to do. Working is a great | distraction from those things. Of course we currently go | in the other direction in the US especially with the | overwork culture and needing 2 or 3 jobs and still not | make ends meet. | | I posit that if you suddenly eliminate all menial tasks | you will have a lot of very bored drunk and stoned people | with too much time on their hands than they know what to | do with. Idle Hands Are The Devil's Playground. | | And that's not a from here to there. It's also the there. | messe wrote: | I don't necessarily agree that you'll end up with drunk | and stoned people with nothing to do. The right education | systems to encourage creativity and other enriching | endeavours, could eventually resolve that. But we're | getting into discussions of what a post scarcity, post | singularity society would look like at that point, which | is inherently impossible to predict. | | That being said, I'm sitting at a bar while typing this, | so... you may have a point. | | Also: your username threw me for a minute because I use a | few different variations of "tharkun" as my handle on | other sites. It's a small world; apparently fully of | people who know the Dwarvish name for Gandalf. | not2b wrote: | Some of the most productive and inventive scientists and | artists at the peak of Britain's power were "gentlemen", | people who could live very comfortably without doing much | of anything. Others were supported by wealthy patrons. In | a post scarcity society, if we ever get there (instead of | letting a tiny number of billionaires take all the gains | and leaving the majority at subsistence levels, which is | where we might end up), people will find plenty of | interesting things to do. | colinflane wrote: | I recently finally got around to reading EM Forster's in- | some-ways-eerily-prescient https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~ko | ehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/... I think you can extract | obvious parallels to social media, remote work, digital | "connectedness", etc -- but also worth consideration in | this context too. | skybrian wrote: | When reading a paper, it's useful to ask, "okay, what did | they actually do?" | | In this case, they tried out an early version of GPT-4 on a | bunch of tasks, and on some of them it succeeded pretty well, | and in other cases it partially succeeded. But no particular | task is explored in enough depth to test its limits are or | get a hint at how it does it. | | So I don't think it's a great paper. It's more like a great | demo in the format of a paper, showing some hints of GPT-4's | capabilities. Now that GPT-4 is available to others, | hopefully other people will explore further. | ThorsBane wrote: | As quickly as someone tries fraudulent deploys involving GPTs, | the law will come crashing down on them. Fraud gets penalized | heavily, especially financial fraud. Those laws have teeth and | they work, all things considered. | | What you're describing is measurable fraud that would have a | paper-trail. The federal and state and local governments still | have permission to use force and deadly violence against | installations or infrastructure that are primed in adverse | directions this way. | | Not to mention that the infrastructure itself is physical | infrastructure that is owned by the entire United States and | will never exceed our authority and global reach if need be. | andre-z wrote: | Here is a video on how it can be used with a vector search | database like Qdrant to retrieve real-time data. | https://youtu.be/fQUGuHEYeog HowTo: | https://qdrant.tech/articles/chatgpt-plugin/ Disclaimer: I'm a | part of Qdrant team. | Imnimo wrote: | In the example near the bottom, where it makes a restaurant | reservation and a chickpea salad recipe, is it just generating | that recipe from the model itself? It looks like they enable | three plugins, WolframAlpha, OpenTable, and Instacart. It's not | clear if the plugins model also comes with browsing by default. | | While I might be comfortable having ChatGPT look up a recipe for | me, I feel like it's a much bigger stretch to have it just | propose one from its own weights. I also notice that the prompter | chooses to include the instruction "just the ingredients" - is | this just to keep the demo short, or does it have trouble | formulating the calorie counting query if the recipe also has | instructions? If the recipe is generated without instructions and | exists only in the model's mind, what am I supposed to do once | I've got the ingredients? | elevenoh wrote: | [dead] | blackoil wrote: | Truly exciting to see the speed of progress. In couple of years | it has got improvements of a decade. From a silly toy, to truly | useful. Won't be surprised if in another year or two it becomes a | must have tool. | mmq wrote: | They will probably have the full suite of Langchain features | justanotheratom wrote: | I wonder if this plugin interface itself will be exposed as an | API for third party apps to call.. | elevenoh4 wrote: | "Plugin developers who have been invited off our waitlist can use | our documentation to build a plugin for ChatGPT, which then lists | the enabled plugins in the prompt shown to the language model as | well as documentation to instruct the model how to use each. The | first plugins have been created by Expedia, FiscalNote, | Instacart, KAYAK, Klarna, Milo, OpenTable, Shopify, Slack, Speak, | Wolfram, and Zapier." | | The waitlist mafia has begun. Insiders get all the whitespace. | Thorentis wrote: | What is the advantage of using the ChatGPT Wolfram plugin over | Wolfram directly? To me it feels like novelty rather than | actually adding anything valuable. If anything, it's worse, | because the data isn't quite guarenteed to always be correct. | Whereas if I use Wolfram directly, I can always get a correct | result. | | This is missing the most important part of AGI, where | understanding of the concepts the plugins provide is actually | baked into the model so that it can use that understand to reason | laterally. With this approach, ChatGPT is nothing more than an | API client that accepts English sentences as input. | samfriedman wrote: | This is huge, essentially adding what people have been building | with LangChain Tools into the core product. | | The browser and file-upload/interpretation plugins are great, but | I think the real game changer is retrieval over arbitrary | documents/filesystem: https://github.com/openai/chatgpt- | retrieval-plugin | gk1 wrote: | 100% agree. All the launch-partner apps (Kayak, OpenTable, etc) | are there to grab attention but this plugin is the real big | deal. | | It's going to let developers build their own plugins for | ChatGPT that do what _they_ want and access _their_ company | data. (See discussion from just a few hours ago about the | importance of internal data and search: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35273406#35275826) | | We (Pinecone) are super glad to be a part of this plugin! | jyrkesh wrote: | Everyone's been talking about how ChatGPT will disrupt search, | but looking at the launch partners, I think this has the | potential to completely subvert the OS / App Store layer. On some | level, how much do I need an OpenTable app if I can use | voice/text input and a multi-modal response that will ultimately | book my reservation? | | Not saying mobile's going away, but this could be the thing that | does to mobile what mobile did to desktop. | ridewinter wrote: | Anything preventing Bard/etc from using these plugins as well? | | Would be nice to keep the ecosystem open. | dragonwriter wrote: | There's nothing stopping any LLM-backed chatbot from using | plugins; the ReAct pattern discussed recently on HN is a | general pattern for incorporating them. | | The main limits are that unless they are integral and | trained-in (which is less flexible), each takes space in the | prompt, and in any case the interaction also takes token | space, all of which reduces the token space available to the | main conversation. | sebzim4500 wrote: | My experience with Bard is it probably isn't smart enough to | figure out on its own how to use these. Google would probably | have to do special finetuning/hardcoding for the plugins that | they want to work. | nemo44x wrote: | Bard is a tard so I doubt it. Google is done. | MagicMoonlight wrote: | I'm surprised Apple hasn't improved siri with a model like | this. Currently it's just trash but with a GPT style model | behind it you could actually get it to do things. | scarface74 wrote: | Why is it surprising? The amount of CPU resources server side | to work on a billion iOS devices at any sort of performance | level is extreme. | | The limitations on making Siri more useful is just adding and | refining its intent system. It already integrates with | Wolfram Alpha for instance. | s1k3s wrote: | > and a multi-modal response that will ultimately book my | reservation? | | How is it going to do that? OpenTable's value isn't in the | tech, a 15 yo could implement that over the weekend. Or maybe | chatGPT can be put in the restaurant, and somehow figure out | how to seat you. And then you'd have a human talking to chatGPT | and chatGPT talking to another chatGPT to complete the task. | That'll be interesting, but otherwise this is overly | complicated for all parties involved. | sharemywin wrote: | So, what's your prediction? Windows Phone has ChatGPT or the | other phone os makers add Microsoft Chat App. | vineyardmike wrote: | People said this about Alexa/Siri et al and it didn't happen. | ChatGPT is way better at understanding you, so that's a big | boost. It could be a great tool/assistant but it probably won't | replace apps. | | The problem with those other platforms that this doesn't | address include: | | - discoverability. How do you learn what features a service | supports. On a GUI you can just see the buttons, but on a chat | interface you have to ask and poke around conversationally. | | - Cost/availability. While a service is server bound, it can go | down and specifically for LLMs, the cost is high per request. | Can you imagine it costing $0.1 a day per user to use an app? | LLMs can't run locally yet. | | - Branding. Open table might want to protect their brand and | wouldn't want to be reduced to an API. It goes both ways - | Alexa struggled with differentiating skills and user data from | Amazon experiences. | | - monetization. The conversational UI is a lot less convenient | to include advertisements, so it's a lot harder for | traditionally free services to monetize. | | Edit: plugins are still really cool! But probably won't replace | the OSes we know. | crooked-v wrote: | > LLMs can't run locally yet. | | "Yet" is a big word here when it comes to the field as a | whole. I got Alpaca-LoRA up and running on my desktop machine | with a 3080 the other day and I'd say it's about 50% as good | as ChatGPT 3.5 and fast enough to already be usable for most | minor things ("summarize this text", etc) if only the | available UIs were better. | | I feel like we're not far off from the point where it'll be | possible to buy something of ChatGPT 3.5 quality as a home | hardware appliance that can then hook into a bunch of things. | sebzim4500 wrote: | >The conversational UI is a lot less convenient to include | advertisements | | How so? Surely people are going to ask this thing for product | recommendations, just recommend your sponsors. | vineyardmike wrote: | This moves the advertisement opportunity to the chat owner. | If you want to use chat (+api) to book a table at a | restaurant, then the reservation-api company loses a change | to advertise to you vs. if you used a dedicated | reservation-web-app. | dragonwriter wrote: | Chat can be an interface, but its also essentially a | universal programming language which can be put behind (or | generate itself) any kind of interface. | AOsborn wrote: | Good points - but I fundamentally disagree here. | | The whole ecosystem, culture and metaphor of having a | 'device' with 'apps' is to enable access to a range of | solutions to your various problems. | | This is all going to go away. | | Yes, there will always be exceptions and sometimes you need | the physical features of the device - like for taking photos. | | Instead, you'll have one channel which can solve 95% of your | issues - basically like having a personalised, on-call | assistant for everyone on the planet. | | Consider the friction when consumers grumble about streaming | services fragmenting. They just want one. They don't want to | subscribe to 5+. | | In 10 years, kids will look back and wonder why on earth we | used to have these 'phones' with dozens or hundreds of apps | installed. 'Why would you do that? That is so much work? How | do you know which you need to use?' | | If there was one company worrying about change, I would think | it would actually be Apple. The iPhone has long been a huge | driver of sales and growth - as increasing performance | requirements have pushed consumers to upgrade. Instead, I | think the increasing relevance of AI tools will inverse this. | Consumers will be looking for smaller, lighter, harder- | wearing devices. Why do you need a 'phone' with more power? | You just need to be able to speak to the AI. | vineyardmike wrote: | > Consider the friction when consumers grumble about | streaming services fragmenting. They just want one. They | don't want to subscribe to 5+. | | I think you just proved it won't happen anytime soon. | | Consumers obviously would prefer a "unified" interface. Yet | we can't even get streaming services to all expose their | libraries to a common UI - which is already built into | Apple TV, fireTv, Roku, and Chromecast. Despite the failure | of the streaming ecosystem to unify, you expect _every | other software service_ to unify the interfaces? | | I think we'll see more features integrated into the | operating system of devices, or integrated into the | "Ecosystem" of our devices - first maps was an app, then a | system app, now calling an uber is supported in-map, and | now Siri can do it for you on an iPhone. But I think it's a | _long_ road to integrate this universally. | | > If there was one company worrying about change, I would | think it would actually be Apple. | | I agree that apple has the most to lose. Google | (+Assistant/Bard) has the best opportunity here (but | they'll likely squander it). They can easily create | wrappers around services and expose them through an | assistant, and they already have great tech regarding this. | The announcement of Duplex was supposed to be just that for | traditional phone calls. | | Apple also has a great opportunity to build it into their | operating system, locally. Instead of leaning into an API- | first assistant model, they could use an assistant to | topically expose "widgets" or views into existing on-device | apps. We already see bits of it in iMessages, on the Home | Screen, share screen and my above Maps example. I think the | "app" as a unit of distribution of code is a good one, and | here to stay, and the best bet is for an assistant to hook | into them and surface embedded snippets when needed. This | preserves the app company's branding, UI, etc and free's | apple from having to play favorite. | sho_hn wrote: | I think you're missing the fact that the LLM could also | generate the frontend on the fly by e.g. spitting out | frontend code in a markup language like QML. What's a multi- | activity Android app if not an elaborate notebook? Branding | can just be a parameter. | | Sure, maybe OpenTable would like to retain control. But | they'll probably just use the AI API to implement that | control and run the app. | LouisSayers wrote: | Who's to say though that it'll always stay a text format. | | They could bring in calendar, payment, other UI | functionality... | | Basically they could rethink how everything is done on the | Web today. | billiam wrote: | It almost certainly won't take the form of a text format. | Impersonating a chatbot or a search engine GUI is just the | fastest way for OpenAI to accumulate a few hundred million | users, to leave the competition for user data and metadata | behind. | aryamaan wrote: | it would likely take the form of just in time software. | w_for_wumbo wrote: | I was thinking the same way, but here's where I could imagine | things being different this time (Fully aware that I just | like anyone else is just guessing about where we'll end up) | | - Discoverability. I think we'll move into a situation where | the AI will have the context to know what you will want to | purchase. It'll read out the order and the specials and you | just confirm or indicate that you'd like to browse more | options. (In which case the Chat window could include an | embedded catalogue of items) | | - Cost/availability - With the amount of people working in | this area, I don't think it'll be too long before we're able | to get a lighter weight model that can run locally on most | smart phones. | | - Branding - This is a good point, but also, I imagine a | brand is more likely to let itself get eaten, if the return | will be a constant supply of customers. | | - Monetization - The entire model will change, in the sense | that AI platforms will revenue share with the platforms they | integrate with to create a mutually beneficial relationship | with the suppliers of content. (Since they can't exist | without the content both existing and being relevant) | vineyardmike wrote: | I spent a lot of time working on the product side in the | Voice UI space, and therefore have a lot of opinions. I | could totally end up with a wrong prediction, and my | history may make me blind to changes, but I think a chat | assistant is a great addition to a rich GUI for simple | tasks. | | > I think we'll move into a situation where the AI will | have the context to know what you will want to purchase | | My partner who lives in the same house as me can't figure | out when we need toilet paper. I'm not holding my breath | for an AI model that would need a massive and invasive | amount of data to learn and keep up. | | Also, Alexa tried to solve this on a smaller scale with the | "by the way..." injections and it's extremely annoying. | Thank about how many people use Alexa for basically timers | and the weather and smart home. They're all tasks that are | "one click" once you get in the GUI, and have no lists and | minimal decisions... Timer: 10 min, weather: my house, | bedroom light: off. These are cases where the UI | necessarily embeds the critical action, and a user knows | the full request state. | | This is great for voice, because it allows the user to | bypass the UI and get to the action. I used to work on a | voice assistant and lists were the single worst thing we | had to deal with because a customer has to go through the | entire selection. _Chat_ GPT has a completely different use | case, where it's great for exploring a concept since the | LLM can generate endlessly. | | I think generative info assistants truly is the sweet spot | for LLMs and chat. | | > in the sense that AI platforms will revenue share with | the platforms they integrate with to create a mutually | beneficial relationship with the suppliers of content. | | Like Google does with search results? (they don't) | | Realistically, Alexa, Google Assistant, and Siri all failed | to build out these relationships beyond apps. Companies | like to simply sell their attention for ads, and taking a | handout from the integrator requires either less money, or | an expensive chat interface. | | Most brands seem to want to monetize their own way, in | control of themselves, and don't want to be a simple API. | lalos wrote: | Most (if not all) of those apps are free though, you supply | them as a convenience because you know that smartphone owners | spend money. The host OS loses access to that info, and that is | used to target better ads in certain phone platforms. | scarface74 wrote: | Why do you think Apple would care? It came out in the Epic | trial that 80%+ of App Store revenue comes from in app | purchases in play to win games and buying loot boxes. | | Apple doesn't make any money from OpenTable. | [deleted] | modeless wrote: | We have reached "peak UI". In the future we're not going to | need every service to build four different versions of their | app for every major platform. They can just build a barebones | web app and the AI will use it for you, you'll never have to | even see it. | killthebuddha wrote: | IMO you won't even need to build the app, you'll just provide | a data model and some natural language descriptions of what | you want your product to do. | twobitshifter wrote: | That's how this plugin system works already. | killthebuddha wrote: | I don't think this is the case. You provide an API spec | but you also have to provide the implementation of that | API. ChatGPT is basically a concierge between your API | and the user. | int_19h wrote: | I think the API is meant to be the data model in this | scenario. The point is that you design the API around the | _task_ that it solves, rather than against whatever fixed | spec OpenAI publishes. And then you tell ChatGPT, | "here's an AI, make use of it for ..." - and it magically | does, without you having to write any plumbing. | hackerlight wrote: | It isn't yet. For example, Wolfram Alpha is an app that | GPT is communicating to, and it actually exists. | nprateem wrote: | Except you won't if you want to make money because then you | don't have a business | killthebuddha wrote: | I mean yeah, you'll have to provide a data model (and | data) that other people don't have. | Aeolos wrote: | And that is why some people think this AI leap could be | as big as the internet. | revelio wrote: | Charge people for installing your plugin into ChatGPT. | IanCal wrote: | Unless you charge for providing services of value to | people. | nonethewiser wrote: | I mean, if you consider mobile we might already be down from | the peak. In the sense that the interface bandwidth has | shrunk to whatever 2 fingers can handle. | huskyZ wrote: | Headless app is the way to go. | Bjorkbat wrote: | I'm kind of skeptical of this simply because people were saying | the same thing about chatbots back when there was a lot of hype | around Messenger. Sure, they weren't as advanced as what we | have now, but they were fundamentally capable of the same | things. | | Not only did the hype not pan out, but it feels as if they were | completely forgotten. | | In a nutshell that's why I'm still largely dismissive of | anything related to GPT. It's 2016-2018 all over again. Same | tech demos. Same promises. Same hype. I honestly can't see the | big fundamental breakthroughs or major shifts. I just see | improvements, but not game-changing ones. | golol wrote: | >but they were fundamentally capable of the same things. | | This is not the case. The difference between current state of | the art NLP and chatbots 3 years ago is so massive, it has to | be seen as qualitative. Pre GPT-3 computers did not | understand language and no commerical chatbot had any AI. Now | computers can understand language. | riku_iki wrote: | > Now computers can understand language. | | "understand" | int_19h wrote: | If I tell it to do X, and it does X, for all practical | purposes it means that it understood what I said. | fullshark wrote: | Yeah being able to generate media/text is what excites me | about these models, more than using my voice or a text input | to do X instead of a webpage which has a GUI and buttons and | text boxes. | nmca wrote: | This time it works. | swalling wrote: | This is a healthy skepticism but the difference was that | using Messenger chatbots was a disjointed, clunky experience | that felt slower than just a few taps in the OpenTable app. | Not to mention that their natural language understanding was | only marginally better than Siri at best. | | In this scenario, it seems dramatically faster to type or | speak "Find me a dinner reservation for 4 tomorrow at a Thai | or Vietnamese restaurant near me." than to browse Google Maps | or OpenTable. It then comes down to the quality and | personalization of the results, and ChatGPT has a leg up on | Google here just due to the fact that their results are not | filled with ads and garbage SEO bait. | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | This is what Apple's Siri was meant to be. Apple bought Siri | from SRI international (Siri = SRI), and when it was launched | was meant to include ability to book restaurants etc (thereby | bypassing search), but somehow those capabilities were never | released and today Siri still can't even control the iPhone! | | My hot take on ChatGPT plugins is a bit mixed - should be very | powerful, and maybe significant revenue generator, but at same | time doesn't seem in the least bit responsible. We barely | understand ChatGPT itself, and now it's suddenly being given | ability to perform arbitrary actions! | CobrastanJorji wrote: | Google's assistant, on the other hand, did figure out the | reservation trick. Reportedly "book a table for four people | at [restaurant name] tomorrow night" actually works, though | I've never tried it. | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | Interesting - I wasn't aware of that. Will have to Google | to see what else it may be capable of. Google really needs | to update assistant with something LLM based though, and it | seems Bard really isn't up to the job. | scarface74 wrote: | This doesn't take a huge level of "AI" by any means. It's | really simple pattern matching in a very limited context. | golol wrote: | All chatbots require AI to really be useful. This just did | not exist until a few years ago. | scarface74 wrote: | This isn't really true. Siri could easily be more useful in | its current state if it had a larger library of intents and | API access. | rvnx wrote: | Siri's capabilities are somehow much closer to Google Bard | than ChatGPT (have tried all of them). | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | That's a bit harsh on Bard, but yes - just got access today | and it's surprisingly weak. | mlboss wrote: | BARD just gives up on coding questions. | pxtail wrote: | I'm afraid that it has potential to subvert everything, looking | at the plugins initiative is not hard to think like this: | imagine the world where separate websites and just browsing | websites as we know it doesn't exist, instead one is | interacting with the model(s) directly to do what needs to be | done - asking for news, buying new present for kids, discussing | car models with selected price range etc. | seydor wrote: | As long as the services do get paid, this is not much | different than what we have now | | Google gatekeeps everything currently, it s in the browser, | the search button, the phone etc. Having chatbots instead of | google is better | 015a wrote: | I'm not sure if the word "subvert" is right; the OS is still | there, the App Store is still there, and nothing they've | demonstrated will measurably impact revenue from these sources | (the iOS App Store's largest source of revenue, by far, is | games. Some estimates put Games as like 25% of all of Apple's | revenue). | | I think there's also a global challenge (actually, opportunity | IS the right word here) that by-and-large the makers of | operating systems aren't the ones ahead in the language AI game | right now. Bard/Google may have been close six months ago, but | six months is an eternity in this space. Siri/Apple is so far | behind that its not looking likely they can catch up. About a | week ago a Windows 11 update was shipped which added a Bing AI | button to the Windows 11 search bar; but Windows doesn't really | drive the zeitgeist. | | I wonder if 2023/4 is the year for Microsoft to jump back into | the smartphone OS game. There may finally be something to the | idea of a more minimalist, smaller voice-first smartphone that | falls back on the web for application experiences, versus app- | first. | huskyZ wrote: | Yes it will change the application layer. LLM allows using NUI | as the universal interface to invoke under-utilized data & | apis. We can now develop super-app rather than many one-off | apps. I have been exploring this idea since 2021, love to | connect with anyone who wants to work in this space. | tough wrote: | I agree, it's a revolutionary new better UX paradigm. | endisneigh wrote: | I see a lot of positive sentiment and hype, but ultimately unless | they own the phone ecosystem they will lose in the end, imho. In | a year Apple and Google will trivially create something | equivalent. Those who control the full stack (hardware, software | and ecosystem) will be the true winners. | qgin wrote: | I am curious how Apple will approach it. They have historically | valued 100% certainty with Siri above all else, even if it | means having an extremely limited feature set. If there is even | a tiny chance it might do the wrong thing, they don't even | enable the capability. | | I don't see how they can ignore this though. But at the same | time it goes against all of Apple's culture to allow the kind | of uncertainty that comes out of LLMs. | scarface74 wrote: | It's not "trivial" because of the cost per query. As far as | Google, it doesn't even have access to the most valuable phone | users without paying Apple $18B+ a year. | endisneigh wrote: | Something can be both expensive and trivial. If the market is | huge they will bear the cost. The tech is well understood | even now. | | The parameter size will likely be an order of magnitude less | for gpt4 level results in a few years | scarface74 wrote: | If the _fixed cost_ was huge, you would have point. But the | _variable_ costs are also huge. | | I'm sure the market is also huge for dollars sold for 95 | cents. | visarga wrote: | True, this will not only be replicated by Google, Apple, Amazon | and Facebook, but also by open-source. OpenAI has a short | window of exclusivity. Nobody can afford to wait now, after | reading the Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence paper I | am convinced it is proto-AGI. Just read the math section, | coding and tool use. I've read thousands of papers and never | have I seen one like this. | | https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf | MichaelRazum wrote: | The question is how fast can you replicate it? | | People will use the best solution. Chrome came after firefox | and ie and opera and become more populare because it was | better. | KennyBlanken wrote: | > We've implemented initial support for plugins in ChatGPT. | Plugins are tools designed specifically for language models with | safety as a core principle, and help ChatGPT access up-to-date | information, run computations, or use third-party services. | | That is the most awkward insertion of a phrase about safety I've | seen in quite some time. | davidkuennen wrote: | I'm so hyped for the ChatGPT-4 API. Wish they'd give me access so | I can make a lot of my workflows much easier. Especially in terms | of translations. | billiam wrote: | The blog post(1) from Stephen Wolfram is epic and has a lot of | implications for how science and engineering is going to get done | in the future. Tl;dr he seems willing to let ChatGPT shape how | people will interact with his computational language and the data | it unlocks. He genuinely doesn't seem to know where it will go | but makes the case for Wolfram Language being the language that | ChatGPT uses to compute a lot of things. But I think it more | likely ChatGPT will make his natural interface to Wolfram | (Wolfram|Alpha) quickly obsolete and end up modifying or | rewriting Wolfram Language so it can use it more effectively. He | makes the case that "true" AI is going to be possible with this | combination of neural net-based "talking machines" like ChatGPT | and languages like Wolfram. I remain skeptical, but it might | shape human research for years to come. | | 1. https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/03/chatgpt-gets- | its... | [deleted] | siavosh wrote: | What blows my mind is how quickly they produce the research | papers, and the online documentation to match the technological | velocity they have...I mean, what if most of this is just ChatGPT | running the company... | amrrs wrote: | Here is ChatGPT's response of this HN thread tweeted by Greg - | https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1638986918947082241 | | insane! | MichaelRazum wrote: | wow | folli wrote: | I'm still confused on the difference between ChatGPT and Bing | Chat. When asking Bing Chat the exact same question, it won't | be able to find this here HN thread and will reply about a | 9to5google article about the topic. I thought Bing Chat uses | GPT-4 as well? | ducktective wrote: | I think Greg frequents HN. He mentioned a Python web-ui project | which was on first page of HN on GPT4 launch day too. | mikeknoop wrote: | (Zapier cofounder) | | Super excited for this. Tool use for LLMs goes way beyond just | search. Zapier is a launch partner here -- you can access any of | the 5k+ apps / 20k+ actions on Zapier directly from within | ChatGPT. We are eager to see how folks leverage this | composability. | | Some new example capabilities are retrieving data from any app, | draft and send messages/emails, and complex multi step reasoning | like look up data or create if doesn't exist. Some demos here: | https://twitter.com/mikeknoop/status/1638949805862047744 | | (Also our plugin uses the same free public API we announced | yesterday, so devs can add this same capability into your own | products: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35263542) | sharemywin wrote: | The problem with Zapier is zaps are to expensive at scale. | roflyear wrote: | Well, that and you trust Zapier with a lot of stuff. | tbrock wrote: | And Zapier are unwilling to work with you to reduce that cost | even at a scale of 1 billion requests per month. | [deleted] | WadeF wrote: | Email your use case: wade at zapier dot com. Happy to take | a look. | tbrock wrote: | Too late, we spoke with someone on the team three years | ago who told us he couldn't help and we've moved on. | sharemywin wrote: | Also, isn't OpenAPI going to eat your business model? | | Don't get me wrong alot of platforms seem like they go bye, | bye. | | Hey, ChatGPT I need to sell my baseball card. Ok I see there's | 30 people that have listed an interested in buying card like | yours, would you like me to contact them? | | 20 on facebook marketplace, 9 on craiglist and some guy | mentioned something about looking for one on his nest cam. | | by the way remember what happened the last time you sold | something on craigslist. | 93po wrote: | I saw a startup recently that's working to automate | interactions with applications that are either not web apps (in | which case you'd run a local instance of it) or a web app that | doesn't provide an API to do certain (or any) actions. Is this | something Zapier is looking at, too? It would really expand | what's possible with the OpenAI integration and save people a | tremendous amount of time to not be forced to jump through | hoops interacting with often crappy software. | dwohnitmok wrote: | To echo sharemywin, bluntly I think OpenAI just demolished your | business model. | | I think I'm probably going to be advising people to move off | Zapier pretty soon because it won't be worth the overhead. | djoldman wrote: | Now just one step away from charging businesses for access to the | chatGPT users. | | Instant links from inside chatGPT to your website are the new | equivalent of Google search ads. | mariojv wrote: | I really hope they stick with the ChatGPT+ paid model. A big | use of GPT to me is getting information I can already get with | a search, but summarized more concisely without having to | navigate various disparate web interfaces and bloated websites. | It saves a lot of time for things that I don't need an expert's | verified opinion on. Injecting ads into that might mess with | the experience. | | Maybe a freemium model where you don't get ads as a plus | subscriber would work out. | baq wrote: | Bing image creator seems to be on the right path to freemium: | you get a few priority requests and then get bumped onto the | slow free queue. If the thing keeps getting better as fast as | it is right now they'll have lines in the checkout page. | aetherane wrote: | I don't like the fact that OpenAI is a private company, meaning | that wealth will further concentrate from its growth. It is | ironic too because it can't become public due to the pledge of | it's non profit parent to restrict the profit potential of the | for profit entity. | mherrmann wrote: | The Wolfram plugin also has extremely impressive examples [1]. | | If I were OpenAI, I would use the usage data to further train the | model. They can probably use ChatGPT itself to determine when an | answer it produced pleased the user. Then they can use that to | train the next model. | | The internet is growing a brain. | | 1: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/03/chatgpt-gets- | its... | v4dok wrote: | bye bye jupyter notebooks. This is big. | baq wrote: | absolutely... not. !pip install jupyter- | chatgpt !chatgpt make me a notebook with this dataframe | with such and such plots > here you are | 0xDEF wrote: | Is there a list of companies that have been made obsolete by | ChatGPT? | brokensegue wrote: | yeah here's the list: | | 1. | sharemywin wrote: | Can't wait for the mturk, upwork and fiverr plugins. | imhoguy wrote: | humans as batteries in pods soon | seydor wrote: | they arent particularly good as batteries. | | ChatGPT , optimize these humans | | (btw how awkward that our robot overlord is called "Chat Gee | Pee Tee") | denis2022 wrote: | [dead] | sharemywin wrote: | I wonder how you pay for it? | | Are the plugins going to cost more? | | Do they share the $20 with the plug provider? | | do you get charged a pay per use? | iamflimflam1 wrote: | The video in the "Code Interpreter" section is a must watch. | embit wrote: | This news excites me and scares the crap out of me at the same | time. | JCharante wrote: | A first party version of apps that have been built with langchain | is great but I'm dissapointed to not see Jira here yet. | | I have been playing around with GPT-4 parsing plaintext tickets | and it is amazing what it does with the proper amount of context. | It can draft tickets, familiarize itself with your stack by | knowing all the tickets, understand the relationship between | blockers, tell you why tickets are being blocked and the | importance behind it. It can tell you what tickets should be | prioritized and if you let it roleplay as a PM it'll suggest what | role to be hiring for. I've only used it for a side project and | I've always felt lonely working on solo side projects, but it is | genuinly exciting to give it updates and have it draft emails on | the latest progress. The first issue tracker to develop a plugin | is what I'm moving towards. | jasondigitized wrote: | Tell me more. Are you feeding it a epic and all stories and | subtasks? What are your prompts? | gk1 wrote: | The biggest deal about this is the ability to create your own | plugins. The Retrieval Plugin is a kind of starter kit, with | built-in integrations to the Pinecone vector database: | https://github.com/openai/chatgpt-retrieval-plugin#pinecone | Jeff_Brown wrote: | > whether intelligence can be achieved without any agency or | intrinsic motivation is an important philosophical question. | | Important yes, philosophical no -- it's an empirical question. | dragonwriter wrote: | The philosophical part is actually defining each of those terms | so that there is an empirically-explorable question. | jug wrote: | Google is so f'ed right now. | | Can you imagine Google just released a davinci-003 like model in | public beta? That only supports English and can't code reliably. | | OpenAI is clearly betting on unleashing this avalanche before | Google has time to catch up and rebuild reputation. They're still | lying in the boxing ring and the referee is counting to ten. | amrb wrote: | Does anyone else find the AI voice-over creepy? like they pause | but give it away but not breathing. | andre-z wrote: | Another showcase video | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYaQBLLQri8 | throwaway2203 wrote: | Do you need OpenAI plus for this? | smy20011 wrote: | It seems that OAI have their preference of choosing the first | movers of their ecosystem. | nmca wrote: | Is this the app store moment for AI? (it certainly is for | https://ai.com , aha) | akavi wrote: | I've got to wonder, how does a second player in the LLM space | even get on the board? | | Like, this feels a lot like when the iPhone jumped out to grab | the lion share of mobile. But the switching costs was much | smaller (end users could just go out and buy an Android phone), | and network effects much weaker (synergy with iTunes and the | famous blue bubbles... and that's about it). Here it feels like a | lot of the value is embedded in the business relationships | OpenAI's building up, which seem _much_ more difficult to | dislodge, even if others catch up from a capabilities | perspective. | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | Google have really been caught with their pants down here. | | Remember that OpenAI was created specifically to stave off the | threat of AI monopolization by Google (or anyone else - but at | the time Google). | | DeepMind have done some interesting stuff with Go, Protein | folding etc, but nothing really commercial, nor addressing | their reason d'etre of AGI. | | Google's just-released ChatGPT competitor, Bard, seems | surprisingly weak, and meantime OpenAI are just widening their | lead. Seems like a case of the small nimble startup running | circles around the big corporate behemoth. | theGnuMe wrote: | The groups are focused on different things. | | OpenAI went all in on generative models, i.e. stable | diffusion and large language models. DeepMind focused on | reinforcement learning, tree search, plus alphafold | approaches to biology. FAIR has translation, pytorch, and | some LLM stuff in biology. | | What OpenAI is missing though is any AI research in biology, | but I bet they are working on it. | | I'm not sure if this makes sense but OpenAI seems to be | operating at a higher level of abstraction (AGI) where they | are integrating modalities (text and image modality for now, | probably speech next) vs the other places have taken a more | focused applied approach. | [deleted] | poszlem wrote: | It reminds me of what went down with Netflix. At first, it | looked like you only needed one subscription to watch | everything, but now that other players have entered the market, | with their own bussiness contacts we're seeing ecosystems | fracture. | | For example, Microsoft is collecting data from services A, B, | and C, while Google is gathering data from X, Y, and Z. And | when it comes to language models, you might use GPT for some | tasks and Llama or Bard for others. It seems like the fight | ahead won't be about technology, but rather about who has | access to the most useful dataset. | | Personally, I also think we'll see competitors trying to take | legal action against each other soon. | Vespasian wrote: | 1) Not every use cases will require the full power and | (probably) considerable cost of chat GPT-4. | | 2) some companies can absolutely not use OpenAI tools simply | because they are American and online. A competitor might emerge | to capture that market and be allowed to grow to be "good | enough" | | 3) some "countries" (think China or EU(who am I Kidding)) will | limit their growth until local alternatives are available. | Ground breaking technology have a tendency to spread globally | and the current state of the art is not that expensive (we are | talking single digit billions once) | bottlepalm wrote: | I don't see much of a moat currently, or even developer lockin. | The current APIs, and this new plugin architecture are dead | simple. | nikcub wrote: | now add a ?q= url param to chat.openai.com that fills and submits | the prompt and I'm changing it to my default browser search | provider instantly | seydor wrote: | For expedia or an online shop it makes sense to pay openAI for | the traffic. But how will a content website make money from this? | "Tell me todays headlines" does not bring ad income. Will openAI | be paying for this content? | MichaelRazum wrote: | Google=Nokia? It's just crazy that they were leading the field in | "AI" and got blown away by OpenAI. Anyway to the expert's in the | field, what do you think how hard is it to clone GPT-4 and what | would be the hardest part? I had the impression that it is always | about compute time and you could kind of catch up very quickly, | if you had enough resources. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-23 23:00 UTC)