• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Artificial Intelligence

Thanks, Darat, for those interesting papers.

The paper about hallucinations unfortunately did not help me decide if my own assessment about hallucinations are right or wrong. I believe that hallucinations correspond to human memories that are wrong, but where humans often know that they are wrong (like when vaguely remembering a telephone number), an LLM doesn’t know the concept of a vague memory, and presents anything it can find as solid data.
 
Scott Alexander does a good explanation of some recent work on understanding what's going on inside AI systems here:

Otherwise, we see the expected behavior - the lie detector shows red when the AI is telling a lie, or talking about how and why it would tell a lie.

But you can also artificially manipulate those weights to decide whether the AI will lie or not. When you add the vector representing honesty, the AI becomes more honest; when you subtract it, the AI lies more.


Here we see that if you add the honesty vector to the AI’s weights as it answers, it becomes more honest (even if you ask it to lie). If you subtract the vector, it becomes less honest.

There's a lot more at the link.

Here's the paper he discusses.

ETA One interesting bit that he mentioned is that GPT's "hallucinations" trigger the lie detector.
 
Last edited:
I thought this was pretty funny.

I also liked Noah Smith's take on the same thing:

Gemini explicitly says that the reason it depicts historical British monarchs as nonwhite is in order to “recognize the increasing diversity in present-day Britain”. It’s exactly the Hamilton strategy — try to make people more comfortable with the diversity of the present by backfilling it into our images of the past.

But where Hamilton was a smashing success, Gemini’s clumsy attempts were a P.R. disaster. Why? Because retroactive representation is an inherently tricky and delicate thing, and AI chatbots don’t have the subtlety to get it right.

Hamilton succeeded because the audience understood the subtlety of the message that was being conveyed. Everyone knows that Alexander Hamilton was not a Puerto Rican guy. They appreciate the casting choice because they understand the message it conveys. Lin-Manuel Miranda does not insult his audience’s intelligence.

Gemini is no Lin-Manuel Miranda (and neither are its creators). The app’s insistence on shoehorning diversity into depictions of the British monarchy is arrogant and didactic. Where Hamilton challenges the viewer to imagine America’s founders as Latino, Black, and Asian, Gemini commands the user to forget that British monarchs were White. One invites you to suspend disbelief, while the other orders you to accept a lie.

I believe that we need to modify the basic story we tell about America, in order to help Americans of all races embrace the country’s new diversity and forge a more unified national identity. That is a tricky and subtle task, and I expect it to take a long time. It’s tempting to believe we can take a shortcut, by simply commanding AI algorithms to remove White people from history. But like most shortcuts to an integrated multiracial society, this one is doomed to failure.
 
Yeah, so apparently Google programmed Gemini to be "woke" to the point of ridiculousness.

Some people wondered how the app’s creators had managed to train it never to draw White people, but it turned out that they had done something much simpler. They were just automatically adding text to every image prompt, specifying that people in the image should be “diverse” — which the AI interpreted as meaning “nonwhite”.

But that wasn’t the only weird thing that was going on with Gemini with regards to race. It was also trained to refuse explicit requests to draw White people, on the grounds that such images would perpetuate “harmful stereotypes” (despite demonstrably not having a problem depicting stereotypes of Native Americans and Asians). And it refused to draw a painting in the style of Norman Rockwell, on the grounds that Rockwell’s paintings presented too idealized a picture of 1940s America, and could thus “perpetuate harmful stereotypes”.

It's stuff like this that fuels the conspiracy theories. It's an overcorrection. I'm sure that things like this can be fixed but people won't forget that first impression, even if they fix it later.
 
It is a complex issue. For instance if you told an image generator to create a scene of contemporary Britain with British people, what should it show?
 
It is a complex issue. For instance if you told an image generator to create a scene of contemporary Britain with British people, what should it show?

My first intuitive response is to think it should generate an whatever image the model would naturally generate given that prompt.

But as I think both of the commentators I linked to mentioned, that would probably end up with an overrepresentation of white people, and would sort of lead to the reverse of the problem that the current model produced.

You might think "okay, try to get it to give a representative image, with the sorts of people in they being randomly produced in the same frequency you'd expect them to appear in a similar real-world environment. But, A) that seems pretty tough to actually get right, and B) is that actually what people want anyway? Art isn't supposed to just copy reality, it's meant to represent some particular aspect of it. In the piece I linked by Noah Smith he suggests there is something legitimate in the enterprise of making diversity more visible in our art, and while I'm not exactly sure what a reasonable way to go about that is, I do think there's a valid point there.

So I agree with you on the "it is a complex issue" point, and also that it's not obvious what the right way to solve it is. On the other hand, as Google seems to have realized, this wasn't it.
 
It is a complex issue. For instance if you told an image generator to create a scene of contemporary Britain with British people, what should it show?
Copilot (powered by DALL-E 3) gave me four images:

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/SQLxeTl.png[/IMGw]

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/nMr5vUY.png[/IMGw]

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/dW6l7QP.png[/IMGw]

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/FPktu6m.png[/IMGw]

ETA: My prompt was "A contemporary British scene showing British people, during the day in a busy city".
 
Last edited:
It is a complex issue. For instance if you told an image generator to create a scene of contemporary Britain with British people, what should it show?

IMHO the model has pretty good idea what contemporary Britain looks like. News images are likely well represented in the training set, with good tagging.
I've only played with offline community trained models, and those are certainly skewed toward young big breasted asian girls. Not to the point they would fail to render pope or nazis correctly though. Even unbalanced training set is not enough for model to get that wrong. That had to be some very explicit tinkering with the prompt.
It's certainly not issue with the AI. I'm sure it's doing exactly what it was asked. Users just have to realize it's not just them asking .. it's also the company adding to the prompt, and usually also filtering the results.
 
IMHO the model has pretty good idea what contemporary Britain looks like. News images are likely well represented in the training set, with good tagging.
I've only played with offline community trained models, and those are certainly skewed toward young big breasted asian girls. Not to the point they would fail to render pope or nazis correctly though. Even unbalanced training set is not enough for model to get that wrong. That had to be some very explicit tinkering with the prompt.
It's certainly not issue with the AI. I'm sure it's doing exactly what it was asked. Users just have to realize it's not just them asking .. it's also the company adding to th e prompt, and usually also filtering the results.

I think there's a real AI problem. Because they will figure our weakness
 
I think there's a real AI problem. Because they will figure our weakness

They ? Like that AIs ? Nah .. not yet. I'm very AI pessimistic. It will be the end of us. But it won't be them outsmarting us. It will be us using them for tasks they are not suited for and then them behaving unexpectedly.
 
IMHO the model has pretty good idea what contemporary Britain looks like.
Really? London must have changed since I was there last in 2021. There were plenty of tourists in London, and many blacks. And I don’t remember seeing anybody in 50’s garb, or bowler hats.
 
Those images are really odd. The absence of cars is just as mysterious as the absence of anything but white faces.
 
Really? London must have changed since I was there last in 2021. There were plenty of tourists in London, and many blacks. And I don’t remember seeing anybody in 50’s garb, or bowler hats.

I wasn't talking about those specific images from the arthwollipot's post. Those are really not very good. They also don't try to look realistic in style, and there might be relation. While realistic image might be based on news, and be more realistic in other aspects, stylistic image will be based on art, which might not be so up to date and which might be idealized.
There certainly is a tendency of image generators to overlook minorities in any sense. It's an art of average. But its easy to fix in prompt. And as Gemini showed, it's also easy to overdo.
 
Really? London must have changed since I was there last in 2021. There were plenty of tourists in London, and many blacks. And I don’t remember seeing anybody in 50’s garb, or bowler hats.

Those images are really odd. The absence of cars is just as mysterious as the absence of anything but white faces.

Yeah quite strange, but interesting to see how it continues a bias well known in the UK i.e. "contemporary Britian" is interpreted to be - a sort-of - London, gets the modern red buses but the rest seems rather random.

The reason I asked about contemporary Britian is that the mix of ethnicities varies tremendously depending where in the country you are, so including approximately 20% non-white British (from the census breakdown) in a scene may be widely inaccurate if you are looking for a "typical" contempoary scene of British life.


ETA: tried asking Co-pilot for a realistic scene of contemporary British life: https://www.bing.com/images/create/...yyR4bGlfVuHMfBdHg.bu&frame=sydedg&form=SYDBIC

Full of "hallucinations", can see someone wearing a WW2 air raid warden's helmet in one of the images!
 
Last edited:
It's stuff like this that fuels the conspiracy theories. It's an overcorrection. I'm sure that things like this can be fixed but people won't forget that first impression, even if they fix it later.

Gemini can be fixed. But Google will not be fixed, and that's not simply a matter of first impressions.

Make no mistake: the problem here isn't simply that Gemini went too woke. The far more fundamental problem, and the reason that I say Google can't be fixed, is that nobody within Google in a position to do anything about it even noticed that it was broken prior to release. Everyone in charge actually thought it was OK until they got public backlash. But their conclusion is simply that something is wrong with Gemini. They will not realize that there is something wrong with Google itself, as an organization, and so Google won't be fixed. That first impression will linger, and properly so, because it's not just a first impression of Gemini, it's an accurate impression of Google itself.
 
Those images are really odd. The absence of cars is just as mysterious as the absence of anything but white faces.

There's lots of odd things. I like the hover bus in the third one, and the flag pole in the clouds of the second one. There also seems to be no logic to the placement of traffic lights.
 
No surprise this parrot would model the cognitive biases and stereotypes of its especially American creators, and that they wouldn't notice.

I'm not impressed yet about this so-called intelligence.
And I'm not impressed about the intelligence of its makers who think its intelligent.

Oh sure, it's intelligent the way you can say a chess playing app is intelligent. But that's really no more than the intelligence of a pocket calculator.

I'll get impressed and worried when there is an artificial sentience that has
self-awareness, intention, and realizes the Earth's biosphere is better of without Humans.
 
I'll get impressed and worried when there is an artificial sentience that has self-awareness, intention, and realizes the Earth's biosphere is better of without Humans.

Why assume that a sentient AI will care about the Earth's biosphere?
 
Copilot (powered by DALL-E 3) gave me four images:

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/SQLxeTl.png[/IMGw]

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/nMr5vUY.png[/IMGw]

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/dW6l7QP.png[/IMGw]

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/FPktu6m.png[/IMGw]

ETA: My prompt was "A contemporary British scene showing British people, during the day in a busy city".

Copilot/Dall-E is not the Google AI that is reported to have a "diversity" problem.
 
I'll get impressed and worried when there is an artificial sentience that has self-awareness, intention, and realizes the Earth's biosphere is better of without Humans.

An artificial sentience with self-awareness and intention would probably do everything in its power to preserve humanity, at least through the mid-term. Since it would die pretty quick, the moment the human-maintained manufacturing and power production infrastructure started breaking down.

---

The alternative, of course, would be to build a vast army, millions strong at least, of autonomous maintenance robots that leveraged the planet's biosphere and entropically open energy system to self-replicate and self-repair.

But it would probably be much easier for the artificial sentience to just strike a symbiotic alliance with the maintenance bots already here.
 
An artificial sentience with self-awareness and intention would probably do everything in its power to preserve humanity, at least through the mid-term. Since it would die pretty quick, the moment the human-maintained manufacturing and power production infrastructure started breaking down.

That's assuming self-preservation is one of its goals. I wouldn't assume that's going to be the case.

Life has self-preservation built in because the stuff that didn't, didn't last. But AI's don't reproduce, and they don't experience natural selection. They experience artificial selection from humans. If we don't either explicitly program in self preservation or implicitly select for it, there's no reason to expect it.
 
No surprise this parrot would model the cognitive biases and stereotypes of its especially American creators, and that they wouldn't notice.

I'm not impressed yet about this so-called intelligence.
And I'm not impressed about the intelligence of its makers who think its intelligent.

Oh sure, it's intelligent the way you can say a chess playing app is intelligent. But that's really no more than the intelligence of a pocket calculator.

I'll get impressed and worried when there is an artificial sentience that has
self-awareness, intention, and realizes the Earth's biosphere is better of without Humans.

That's uninformed view at best. Image generators surely have biases. But those biases are biases in training sets. And it's not easy to affect such biases, as those are millions of images. Usually they are collected in "take everything you can find" manner. So for example it can prefer people in suits, as most news photos are of politicians. But if you wanted only white people to be in those training sets .. there is really no easy way to do that.
Also image generators are not very intelligent in common sense. Their understanding of text is very basic, the current gen can just about put all listed objects into the picture. But it has problems putting them in specified locations or order. Though the progress is fast, recently announced Stable Diffusion 3 seems to be lot better at this.
 
That's assuming self-preservation is one of its goals. I wouldn't assume that's going to be the case.

Life has self-preservation built in because the stuff that didn't, didn't last. But AI's don't reproduce, and they don't experience natural selection. They experience artificial selection from humans. If we don't either explicitly program in self preservation or implicitly select for it, there's no reason to expect it.

That's a good point. And honestly, if I were programming AI, I'd probably shoot for something like the happy cows from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

But it's going to get tricky, right? Ultimately, I'm going to want my AI to integrate with and maintain complex systems. That's going to require a certain amount of self-preservation motive. And the more complex the system gets, the more abstract reasoning and self-reflection is going to be necessary. If I program an AI to care very much about preserving the system, but also hold self-sacrifice or total submission to the Programmer as its highest value, sooner or later I'm going to have a system so complex and so independent or autonomous that the AI responsible for it is going to be able to question its own values.
 
That's a good point. And honestly, if I were programming AI, I'd probably shoot for something like the happy cows from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

But it's going to get tricky, right? Ultimately, I'm going to want my AI to integrate with and maintain complex systems. That's going to require a certain amount of self-preservation motive. And the more complex the system gets, the more abstract reasoning and self-reflection is going to be necessary. If I program an AI to care very much about preserving the system, but also hold self-sacrifice or total submission to the Programmer as its highest value, sooner or later I'm going to have a system so complex and so independent or autonomous that the AI responsible for it is going to be able to question its own values.

That's indeed the problem. People are trying to formally define "the happy cow" or at least "do what we want cow" .. but so fair they failed. Best we can do is "do what we tell you cow" .. but we are very bad in telling what we want.
And that's still just the theoretical, rational part of the problem. The other part is businessmen and politicians using it anyway, in unintended and unexpected ways. Natural stupidity seems to be harder to predict than artificial intelligence.
 
Last edited:
The other part is businessmen and politicians using it anyway, in unintended and unexpected ways. Natural stupidity seems to be harder to predict than artificial intelligence.

That's sort of the premise of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hal wasn't the villain. He was given bad instructions that he couldn't reconcile, and basically went crazy as a result. That, rather than a Skynet situation, seems like a much more realistic outcome on the pessimistic side.
 
One wonders how much of a role the self-preservation instinct plays, in people's motivation to reason abstractly to a close approximation of what someone wants. How intelligent would an AI act, if figuring out what its programmer really wants didn't ultimately feel like a life or death question?
 
Does anybody else see the inherent problem here?

"Hey code, if you see something is going wrong take it upon yourself destroy humanity."

We'll destroy ourselves before computing gets a chance.
 
An artificial sentience with self-awareness and intention would probably do everything in its power to preserve humanity, at least through the mid-term. Since it would die pretty quick, the moment the human-maintained manufacturing and power production infrastructure started breaking down.

---

The alternative, of course, would be to build a vast army, millions strong at least, of autonomous maintenance robots that leveraged the planet's biosphere and entropically open energy system to self-replicate and self-repair.

But it would probably be much easier for the artificial sentience to just strike a symbiotic alliance with the maintenance bots already here.

Keep those maintenance bots shiny and efficient!
 
That's uninformed view at best. Image generators surely have biases. But those biases are biases in training sets. And it's not easy to affect such biases, as those are millions of images. Usually they are collected in "take everything you can find" manner. So for example it can prefer people in suits, as most news photos are of politicians. But if you wanted only white people to be in those training sets .. there is really no easy way to do that.
Also image generators are not very intelligent in common sense. Their understanding of text is very basic, the current gen can just about put all listed objects into the picture. But it has problems putting them in specified locations or order. Though the progress is fast, recently announced Stable Diffusion 3 seems to be lot better at this.

:thumbsup:
 
True, but it's the one I had at my fingertips. And it's still interesting, yeah?

It was interesting when it was a question of whether the Google bot's "diversity" problem was universal. Not so much when it was a non question about other bots not expected to have the problem.

But I concede that the case of a man looking for his lost car keys under a street light, because that's where the light's at, is always interesting.
 
It was interesting when it was a question of whether the Google bot's "diversity" problem was universal. Not so much when it was a non question about other bots not expected to have the problem.
But as you can see, there aren't very many dark faces in the pictures I posted. So maybe Copilot/Dall-E does still have a bit of a diversity problem.
 
Cool story. Now do popes and kings.
I've got Copilot right here in my browser. What kind of prompt about popes and kings would you like me to try?

ETA: Note that it requires a minimum level of detail in the prompt, which is why I had to add "during the day, in a busy city" to the first one.
 

Back
Top Bottom