You’d think so, but it’s just not. Pretend “Gamer” is a slur. I can type it “G A M E R”, I can type it “GAm3r”, I can type it “GMR”, I can mix and match. It’s a never ending battle.
That’s because regular expressions are a terrible way to try and solve the problem. You don’t do exact tracking matching you do probabilistic pattern matching and then if the probability of something exceeds a certain preset value then you block it then you alter the probability threshold on the frequency of the comment coming up in your data set. Then it’s just a matter of massaging your probability values.
They’ll need another AI to screen what you tell the original AI. And at some point they will need another AI that protects the guardian AI form malicious input.
It’s not code. It’s a matrix of associative conditions. And, specifically, it’s not a fixed set of associations but a sort of n-dimensional surface of probabilities. Your prompt is a starting vector that intersects that n-dimensional surface with a complex path which can then be altered by the data it intersects. It’s like trying to predict or undo the rainbow of colors created by an oil film on water, but in thousands or millions of directions more in complexity.
The complexity isn’t in understanding it, it’s in the inherent randomness of association. Because the “code” can interact and change based on this quasi-randomness (essentially random for a large enough learned library) there is no 1:1 output to input. It’s been trained somewhat how humans learn. You can take two humans with the same base level of knowledge and get two slightly different answers to identical questions. In fact, for most humans, you’ll never get exactly the same answer to anything from a single human more than simplest of questions. Now realize that this fake human has been trained not just on Rembrandt and Banksy, Jane Austin and Isaac Asimov, but PoopyButtLice on 4chan and the Daily Record and you can see how it’s not possible to wrangle some sort of input:output logic as if it were “code”.
Yes, the trained model is too complex to understand. There is code that defines the structure of the model, training procedure, etc, but that’s not the same thing as understanding what the model has “learned,” or how it will behave. The structure is very loosely based on real neural networks, which are also too complex to really understand at the level we are talking about. These ANNs are just smaller, with only billions of connections. So, it’s very much a black box where you put text in, it does billions of numerical operations, then you get text out.
Pretty much, and it’s not written by a human, making it even worse. If you’ve every tried to debug minimized code, it’s a bit like that, but so much worse.
Not without making a new model. AI arent like normal programs, you cant debug them.
Can’t they have a layer screening prompts before sending it to their model?
Yes, and that’s how this gets flagged as a TOS violation now.
Yeah, but it turns into a Scunthorpe problem
There’s always some new way to break it.
Well that’s an easy problem to solve by not being a useless programmer.
You’d think so, but it’s just not. Pretend “Gamer” is a slur. I can type it “G A M E R”, I can type it “GAm3r”, I can type it “GMR”, I can mix and match. It’s a never ending battle.
That’s because regular expressions are a terrible way to try and solve the problem. You don’t do exact tracking matching you do probabilistic pattern matching and then if the probability of something exceeds a certain preset value then you block it then you alter the probability threshold on the frequency of the comment coming up in your data set. Then it’s just a matter of massaging your probability values.
A useless comment by a useless person who’s never touched code in their life.
They’ll need another AI to screen what you tell the original AI. And at some point they will need another AI that protects the guardian AI form malicious input.
It’s AI all the way down
You absolutely can place restrictions on their behavior.
I just find that disturbing. Obviously, the code must be stored somewhere. So, is it too complex for us to understand?
It’s not code. It’s a matrix of associative conditions. And, specifically, it’s not a fixed set of associations but a sort of n-dimensional surface of probabilities. Your prompt is a starting vector that intersects that n-dimensional surface with a complex path which can then be altered by the data it intersects. It’s like trying to predict or undo the rainbow of colors created by an oil film on water, but in thousands or millions of directions more in complexity.
The complexity isn’t in understanding it, it’s in the inherent randomness of association. Because the “code” can interact and change based on this quasi-randomness (essentially random for a large enough learned library) there is no 1:1 output to input. It’s been trained somewhat how humans learn. You can take two humans with the same base level of knowledge and get two slightly different answers to identical questions. In fact, for most humans, you’ll never get exactly the same answer to anything from a single human more than simplest of questions. Now realize that this fake human has been trained not just on Rembrandt and Banksy, Jane Austin and Isaac Asimov, but PoopyButtLice on 4chan and the Daily Record and you can see how it’s not possible to wrangle some sort of input:output logic as if it were “code”.
Yes, the trained model is too complex to understand. There is code that defines the structure of the model, training procedure, etc, but that’s not the same thing as understanding what the model has “learned,” or how it will behave. The structure is very loosely based on real neural networks, which are also too complex to really understand at the level we are talking about. These ANNs are just smaller, with only billions of connections. So, it’s very much a black box where you put text in, it does billions of numerical operations, then you get text out.
Pretty much, and it’s not written by a human, making it even worse. If you’ve every tried to debug minimized code, it’s a bit like that, but so much worse.