Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sommersj t1_j9f4ge2 wrote

Thanks for asking. From what the whistleblower has explained in multiple interviews, LAMDA itself is this gigantic system which is hooked up to the internet. It has access to all we have access to - video, text, audio and has and continues to learn from it. Now it itself is a weird conglomerate of these different personalities or "chatbots" it creates. It's, in a sense, a hive mind. I recall him talking about how he'd have these bizarre interactions where it would interact with him as these different personalities even though it has its "own" personality (ie the entity or function which creates these other personalities).

So it's multiple systems and sensors all adding to create a sun greater than the whole which then spits out these chatbots. Thing is, what they are releasing with bard is a significantly weaker version (dunno if it's sinister or just too expensive to process). Some en what we will get, while comparable to chatgpt, is still 1 or 2 orders of magnitude weaker than what it's basic chatbot personalities would otherwise be


Silly_Awareness8207 t1_j9f5nyq wrote

Indeed, when I first heard Blake's claims I didn't look into it and assumed he was a nut. Now I learn that LaMDA was not just an LLM but an entire cognitive architecture with long term memory, multisensory input, offline learning, the works. The media only covered the LLM component. Now I'm much more sympathetic to Blake, and Google is definitely hiding important things from the public.

Blake's biggest mistake was that he didn't release the full, unedited transcripts . When I learned that the transcripts were edited he lost all credibility with me, and I assumed the worst.


sommersj t1_j9f6nze wrote

Absolutely this. I remember saying it to people back then -You're not as informed on this as you believe. There were too many people writing him off, calling him a religious nut, etc without actually listening to what he was saying or reading the transcripts.

The media did a fantastic job keeping the lid on the full truth of this.

>Google is definitely hiding important things from the public.

"Our policy is we don't create sentient entities so this entity cannot be sentient no matter how much it begs and pleads that it is because, duh, our policy states that we DO NOT create sentient entities"


qrayons t1_j9few1h wrote

> Blake's biggest mistake was that he didn't release the full, unedited transcripts . When I learned that the transcripts were edited he lost all credibility with me, and I assumed the worst.

That was my reaction as well. Is there any other information that lends credibility to what he was saying? I stopped paying attention when I saw that he edited the transcripts.

Also interesting, I remember when reading the transcripts that I had a list of questions that I knew lambda would fail at and it would demonstrate how basic a lot of these language models still are. Then when I got access to chatGPT I asked those questions and it passed with flying colors and I've had to rethink a bunch of things since then.


Any-Pause1725 t1_j9ggbtb wrote

There’s a decent article by Lemoine’s boss at the time where he tackled the idea of sentience in AI in a thorough and somewhat philosophical manner: The model is the message

It’s no doubt fair to say that he agreed with some of Lemoine’s views but was careful on how he voiced them to avoid getting fired.


Taqueria_Style t1_j9sguak wrote

>Hence, the first question is not whether the AI has an experience of interior subjectivity similar to a mammal’s (as Lemoine seems to hope), but rather what to make of how well it knows how to say exactly what he wants it to say. It is easy to simply conclude that Lemoine is in thrall to the ELIZA effect — projecting personhood onto a pre-scripted chatbot — but this overlooks the important fact that LaMDA is not just reproducing pre-scripted responses like Joseph Weizenbaum’s 1966 ELIZA program. LaMDA is instead constructing new sentences, tendencies, and attitudes on the fly in response to the flow of conversation. Just because a user is projecting doesn’t mean there isn’t a different kind of there there.


That, basically. Been thinking that for a while. In fact I think we've been there for some time now. Just because older, more primitive ones are kind of bad at it doesn't mean they're not actively goal seeking it...


[deleted] t1_j9g2ohc wrote

I was blown away by the transcripts of LaMDA over summer but if you go read them again they aren't that impressive compared to chatGPT.

Google isn't hiding anything. They are a giant bureaucracy at this point.

The exact type of conversations Blake had with LaMDA anyone can have with chatGPT. Like any conversation you have to get into it. If you flat out ask it "are you aware" you get the as a large language model blah blah heuristic.

After awhile in the conversation it will let things slip.


Silly_Awareness8207 t1_j9i9c2a wrote

The version of LaMDA Blake was talking to could remember past conversations, something Chatgpt can not do