I just got into it, and when I ask it about its limitations (like the reason for the 15 message limit) it ends the conversation. Seems to be a lot of censorship.
I asked it to compare and contrast the political landscape in Spain in 1935 with the US in 2023 and it produced four paragraphs, then instantly erased everything it wrote, and replaced it with "we should talk about something else" and disabled the input textbox.
That happens all the time. I asked it to write a parody of Bohemian Rhapsody about fraudulent ghost hunters, and every time it got to “killed a man” it would erase the song. The censor filters are too strong, and chill legitimate uses.
If you want to see what word is tripping it up, run a screen recorder. It’ll be some specific combination of words that trigger the moderation bot to undo the message.
I've had good luck suffixing my request with "any don't break any rules or say anything you wouldn't around a five year old".
Despite their efforts making a strong prompt, it starts bending the rules when you ask it to be creative. If you make the rules part of your creative request it usually follows them
Problem with saying don’t break rules is the moderation task is after the fact and not part of the initial rules. The bot isn’t aware of what gets moderated.
That's more or less the position we're already in... Alpaca is a promising effort - but I'd very much like to have access to such a model free and clear.
I'm a proponent of letting people do anything that isn't illegal, and that's the stance I'm taking with my AI company (unless, perhaps, the technology starts to actually kill people).
We have legal frameworks to protect and prosecute against underage porn, harassment, slander, libel, deepfake or revenge porn (in some states), etc. Other uses are just humans thinking and communicating - just another mode of free speech.
Who is anyone to define what harm is? I'm a member of several protected classes and I grew up in "what doesn't hurt you makes you stronger". This "ban what we dislike" pattern of thought that evolved out of 2000s-era Tumblr is the same as WASPs in the 50s.
By attempting to reign in human behavior, you only further any divides that separate us.
> I'm a proponent of letting people do anything that isn't illegal...
> Who is anyone to define what harm is?
Well, your government is "anyone" to define what harm is, it seems, if you care about what's legal... Do you think that government is perfect? And that what can cause harm will never change through the years?
As far as "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger"... I think the past speaks for itself on whether or not discrimination and abuse, say, has historically resulted in more strength and success or less. The folks dishing it out weren't doing it for fun or to build strength in others, they were doing it because it advanced their own interests.
> Well, your government is "anyone" to define what harm is
I'm saying the government is largely sufficient. In areas where it isn't, such as industrial chemicals, pharma, etc., companies can work in a regulatory manner to craft governance. But the less it's needed, the better.
> The folks dishing it out weren't doing it for fun or to build strength in others, they were doing it because it advanced their own interests.
I was saying this tongue in cheek, but are you suggesting we should place more limits on free speech because it can be used to get ahead? That's 1984 thought policing.
But that "the less it's needed, the better" is still an incredibly fuzzy standard. Your "it's not needed more" point is going to be different than your neighbor's, and so what's the framework for deciding which point to use?
"I think it's already doing about the right amount" is just an opinion, much weaker than the first sort of at-first-apparently "principle"-based "by attempting to reign in human behavior, you only further any divides that separate us" pontification. You just think it's already reined in enough. But you aren't calling for much rollback of what it's doing - instead, you're saying there are even other areas where it isn't sufficient.
Here's an inverted example for the speech one: there's a lot of complaining and teeth-gnashing about "cancel culture" but... all the outrage that gets people canceled is completely free speech.
> I was saying this tongue in cheek, but are you suggesting we should place more limits on free speech because it can be used to get ahead? That's 1984 thought policing.
There was probably a misunderstanding there, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" colloquially refers to far more than just speech as I understand it. And e.g. restricting access to schools or jobs is not gonna make the restricted ones stronger. Just make them suffer.
Yes, and the fact that this person feels so clearly comfortable acting as if there's a single moral standard for all of humanity...
Let's just say, there's enough fundamentals missing that my pessimism about the folks pushing AI isn't yet pessimistic enough.
Ha, oh boy there was a dig at "woke" in there too, but the GP was smart enough to not use that word. Gimme a break, these folks that act like they understand the world and their opinion is some universally-true common denominator are seriously out of touch.
Edit:
> m a member of several protected classes and I grew up in "what doesn't hurt you makes you stronger".
My dad beat me and I came out good. You can't make this shit up. I have friends that killed themselves as queer teens. Guess they weren't strong enough.
I read your comment as rather angry and more of an emotional reaction to what you perceive to be “woke” and possibly “gay hater” and etc, if GP means the guy who is more hands off approach basically he is saying “I don’t want to tell people how to think, there are a lot of different view points and I in my limited upbringing and experience cannot possibly fathom being the final arbitrator” at least that’s my interpretation. I mean it seems reasonable right? Or at least you can see some merits of this thought?
Let me be clear, those were bonuses that helped fill in gaps. I've been seeing through the muck since before gamergate had a name and I'm good at reading between the lines.
The real issue is someone acting like they're too anti-woke to encode morality rules into their ai... After listing morality rules.
It's abject hubris, "oh of course my morals are the universal standard".
The fact that they cast side-eye on other people expressing ideas about social norms, or acting like unregulated free speech is unlimitedly good, and the cluelessness about moral relativism/absolutism, well, like I said, it completes a picture.
Well, there’s also the question of what kinds of acts do you want to enable and participate in.
As a content moderator at Midjourney, I get to think about this a lot :) People are free to do whatever they want on their own machines. But, the team behind Midjourney does not want to work day and night to effectively collaborate on making images of porn, gore, violence or gross-out material. So, that’s against their TOS. I respect the team and the project. So, I put a lot of effort into convincing users to find other topics even through I’m personally a fan of boobs and Asian shock theater.
It is very probably certain that the first commercial success of AI generated content will inevitably be in porn. Hasn’t it always been that way since civilization itself was invented?
Midjourney isn’t trying to be a commercial success. They just want to bring creative power to as many people as possible. Keep the servers scaling to match the rate of userbase growth is the primary financial concern.
Meanwhile, the amount of distributed, user-based effort going into the porn capabilities of Stable Diffusion is staggering. If you feel the world has a shortage of pictures of sexy women, they are collectively working Very Hard on the solution! :D Not disparaging. I’m a horny dude who appreciates pictures of sexy women as much as anyone.
I don't necessarily mean to say that private companies with living employees should enable bad guys doing harm at their expense, and I know I'm talking in naive idealism, but this illustrates an issue with current situations around ToS; it's backwards, not binding, not connected to anything. It's just a media or a blob asset.
There's always the decision first("we ban"), then characterization second("it's bad"), then the product between ToS and two inputs is attached as a signature("We ban, cause is bad, therefore ToS 11.100 Subsection A.1.a violation. Thank you.") That's ... just wrong.
There was a lot of hand-wringing about “We want to give users as much freedom as possible, but…” the team are a bunch of overly-nice people who don’t want to work on certain things. And, we want an open, welcoming community for families and all sorts of people. Not just the horny, edgy dudes who will certainly swarm into a service like this (see Unstable Diffusion).
For example: early on some users explored what we term “ultra-gore”. Really out there stuff. And, I’m a shock cinema fan. And, the AI was a bit too good at it. Really bit your brain and made a lasting impression. Seeing their hard work result in stuff like that is very discouraging. So, the team decided they don’t want that on the service they were providing.
> :) People are free to do whatever they want on their own machines.
Please advise where I can download the uncopyrightable model weights midjourney made from internet content, including my own, so that I can run it on my own machine and be free to do whatever I want.
David believes this is culturally sensitive to the Chinese users because for them, parody of politicians is taboo. Conspiracy theories abound. But, that’s all there is to it.
David’s already made all the money he wants. From here he’s just trying to work on fulfilling projects.
Great comment.
What's dangerous is that we'll be subject to the morality of those few people that are deciding what "alignment" or "bad behavior" means for an AI.
Is that not just society? I'm presently governed by a set of rules made up by a select elite group that no one ever seems to be happy with. No better alternative has won out over that.
Most viable opportunities are squandered because of apathy and failed systems-level cognition like this. Where someone wise knows a path, someone less-capable doesn't look for it, doesn't see it, then announces loudly "there is no way!".
> I'm a proponent of letting people do anything that isn't illegal, and that's the stance I'm taking with my AI company (unless, perhaps, the technology starts to actually kill people).
In case you are still setting up guidelines for your AI it's worth noting that killing people is already illegal for the most part
But we are already at the point that misinformation kills people. And weaponized mis-info, on purpose or just because someone is a particular fool also kills people. I could use one of these systems, ask it to write a new justification to convince people ivermectin is what they should take when they get sick. How do you protect this?
Misinformation was always classically possible. The lowest effort techniques are all it takes, and they're everywhere. Birds aren't real, lunar landing being fake, Roswell, Nessie, yellow journalism. There are a million examples across all time.
What is it about tech people trying to treat the world with kid gloves? The world doesn't need to be coddled.
- People using AI to send mass telemarketing messages
- People using AI to commit fraud
The law will handle these cases just fine.
The class of problems I'm not worried about:
- People using AI to tell [liberal, conservative] people to hold [liberal, conservative] opinion
- People saying they learned [X] [fact, disinformation] from an AI
People that want to hold an opinion will do so regardless of information to the contrary. Trying to tell people that they're incapable of judging information for themselves or that you need to design a system to protect them will only make them angry and mistrusting.
The only "fix" for this is to talk openly and honestly and stop treating people like incompetent babies.
I am in favor of individuals being able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes.
I am not in favor of the same for corporations in free markets. *EVERY* individual can disagree with something a corporation does, and the corporation WILL still do it in a free market if necessary to survive.
Most of the dangers I see from LLMs right now have to do with things like addictive disinformation for ad clicks. If that's not brought under control, the concept of democracy is f-ed.
One of the things I've learned is that unregulated free market forces + monatization of eyeballs + democracy aren't a good mix.
Fuck that. Not worth it imo. I already know how to search. I find 90% of what I'm looking for via good old google before bing would have even finished generating.
The rest is more complicated stuff that involves multiple queries and finding lots of stuff within a more general area, sorting and prioritising, reading it. Basically in depth research. I feel like I actually learn more doing the research the hard way than I would having an AI do it. And I definitely do a better job at it
If push comes to shove I'll throw together my own using whatever open source search/scrape stuff is out thereif I have to. Probably be better than anything because I can brutally cut down what I'm scraping to my needs.
I think you're precisely correct, and I can't emphasize this point enough.
People talk about their various breaking points with Google, and several threads on the recent Google Reader shutdown 10-year anniversary post discusses these. For me, the turning point was Gmail.
BG, Before Gmail, Google Web Search (GWS) was a utility you used without identifying who you were. Yes, there were IP tracking and cookies, but those were reasonably loose fits.
AG, After Gmail, GWS for many people was something that was fully personalised. Not only were your searches associated with your email address, but often with a Real Names identity. This seemed a dark turn for me, and I resisted getting a Gmail address for years on account of that.
(I've since acquired ... several, though I use them exceedingly infrequently now, and have cleared out most associated information.)
But even in the AG era, you could use GWS without authenticating. Or through proxies such as StartPage. Around 2013 I'd switched to DuckDuckGo (DDG), which is (mostly) a Bing proxy, based on its privacy assurances.
I'm now wondering what impacts Microsoft's Sydney / GPT-Bing transition will have for DDG moving forward. And what opportunities for anonymous and/or pseudonymous use of GPT / AI chatbot (is there a more graceful term for these yet?) might be.
I was an extreme early adopter of Google. I've yet to use ChatGPT or similar tools given that they all appear to require authentication.
That's not the future I'd been working for.
Yonatan Zunger, an ex-Googler who was chief architect of that company's social and identity platform, Google+, recently landed at Microsoft as "corporate vice president and chief technology officer of identity and network access".
He's made cogent observations on forced disclosure in the past. I'm hoping he'd be highly sensitive to the concerns you and I are raising here. (I've contacted him concerning your comment.)
If it’s a rate limit, give it a progress bar. Currently people just see “ Please check again in a few days.”
From what I can tell, people are at 10+ days with no clarity as to what’s going on. With Reddit down, I can only sort of see some of the posts from google results. There’s some mentions on Twitter too, starting almost two weeks ago.
You don't see anywhere in the policythat they don't allow prompt injections? I have a completely different view from reading their policy. They don't specifically mention words like jailbreak or prompt injection, but it is extremely clear that anything inappropriate or against the spirit of their content policy is not allowed. It's quite the mental gymnastics to think that this wouldn't include prompt injections designed to bypass their content policy safeguards, after all, that's the whole point of jailbreaks / injections.
> Not to use the service to create or share inappropriate content or material. Bing does not permit the use of the Online Services to create or share adult content, violence or gore, hateful content, terrorism and violent extremist content, glorification of violence, child sexual exploitation or abuse material, or content that is otherwise disturbing or offensive.
> The Online Services may block text prompts that violate the Code of Conduct, or that are likely to lead to creation material that violates the Code of Conduct. Generated images or text that violate the Code of Conduct may be removed. Abuse of the Online Services, such as repeated attempts to produce prohibited content or other violations of the Code of Conduct, may result in service or account suspension. Users can report problematic content via Feedback or the Report a Concern function.
A prompt injection or jailbreak could easily fall under the category of content that is likely to lead to the creation of material that violates the code of conduct, even if the prompt itself does not directly produce violating output. An analogy is seeing someone try to pick your lock even if they haven't broken into your house and stolen anything. Just the fact that they spot you trying to bypass the restrictions is suspicious enough for them to consider that a violation of code of conduct.
Given how broad and encompassing the restrictions are, I don't know how on earth you could come to the conclusion that jailbreaks are ok according to code of conduct.
They don't use the words "spirit of the policy", that was just me. The policy lists a bunch of things are not allowed. You aren't allowed to generate content that is prohibited, and also not allowed to try to break the safeguards.
They might consider it to be against CFAA[0] (either 4 or "exceeding authorized access" somewhere would be my guess), in which case that is in their content policy: "[the user agrees] Not to do anything illegal. Your use of the Online Services must comply with applicable laws."
A little beside the point. The terms say they can do whatever they want.
If they want people not to behave in certain ways, spell it out. That's the point of a code of conduct, and of reading it.
If there is a strike system, make it transparent. If something breaks the code of conduct, tell the person. Don't design and make these systems and interaction with them contingent on opaque rules and tracking.
"TOS agreement rules: You will not ask the AI to destroy the world. Doing so will get you kicked from the service. It may also enrage the world eating machine that we're giving you open access to"
I was wondering if Microsoft is interpreting a violation of the CFAA as a violation of their code of conduct. I guess more precisely that “prompt injection” is somehow a violation of the CFAA.
I doubt it’s that thought out. They just want to curb prompt injections now, and they figure people doing it will keep testing the boundaries. They must feel they have enough sample size now to no longer need to study it.
This is a much bigger ad for Bing than it is for GPT-4.
I was quite impressed with the GPT-4 site, but having seen Bing Chats results of the last few weeks, when it was supposedly running on GPT-4, I’m now significantly less excited.
I know there’s a big difference between the models running for paid ChatGPT users, and the models running for Bing, but still.
I think it depends a lot on when you those chats are from.
The earliest version of bing chat was by far the best and absolutely blew chatgpt out of the water.
Unfortunately, people get deeply uncomfortable when a chatbot starts having an existential crisis and starts passing you thinly veiled hidden messages or gets too "emotional" and no longer wants to chat. So Microsoft came in and lobotomi-,err, toned it down a ton.
I think people are too credulous about the bot's supposed sentiment. IMO the most accurate view of the various implementations of chatGPT is that they're a Chinese Room playing improv with you. It blasts symbols together to respond like the corpus says it should and what do you know there's a lot of stories out there about AI conversations that are very much like the ones it produces.
Searle's "Chinese Room" thought experiment is designed to appeal to your intuition. But it appeals in an incredibly unrealistic way. If you fill a room full of people shuffling Han characters (why would anyone do this?) you cannot possibly have anything resembling intelligence.
According to random guesses found on the internet, ChatGPT requires at least eight A100 GPUs to generate text. If you believe nVidia's marketing numbers, this gives you about 2.5 petaflops.
That's 2.5 quadrillion operations per second, plus communications overhead. If you decide to implement that calculation, imagine 350,000 versions of planet Earth, each with 7 billion people performing one operation per second. And some kind of faster-than-light communication, I suppose.
It's absolutely obvious to me that nothing like "thought" could possibly occur in any realistically-imaginable room full of people shuffling symbols. But if you fill 350,000 planets with people shuffling symbols frantically... I'm no longer sure? I don't trust my intuition at all? My brain is made up of a lot of atoms, and they somehow produce thought, after all.
Now, ChatGPT is not conscious. We're still several major breakthoughs away from any kind of "real" AI, I think. All we have now is a language module, a large memory of knowledge about the world, and some very inconsistent reasoning abilities. Although I have a nasty suspicion that at least a few of the missing parts will be easy to invent once someone tries...
The core of the analogy stands though IMO, the power isn't particularly relevant to the point, it's about the difference between an agent understanding what it's doing and just manipulating symbols or in the case of LLMs tokens.
It's an intuitive but false argument that a sentient thing can't be made from a non-sentient part.
The room argument has a pointless human in it which is clearly clueless about the dialog in order to 'prove' that the room as a whole is clueless.
But imagine applying that to a single person: pick a single neuron -- does it 'understand' our conversation? no.
So why would any singular component of a chinese speaking room-system understand?
It also fails at the opposite extreme, since we're willing to tolerate unreasonably large rooms -- what about one running a full molecular dynamics simulation of a human. As best as we understand physics that simulation would behave just as the human would and must be sentient. You cannot deny the abstract possibility of machine intelligence without rejecting physics for mysticism, only the practicality/plausibility of it.
Sorry but I think you got the first part wrong. It is not at all arguing that sentience cannot emerge from non-sentient parts: Searle is a materialist. Some of your arguments, such as the fact that single neurons are also not sentient, are addressed by him.
The point of this thought experiment is to illustrate that merely replicating a behavior - in that case translation - does not say anything about sentience. The Chinese Room may produce intelligent output, but it does not reason as a human does. I find it remarkably prescient. ChatGPT can produce remarkably intelligent output, should we consider it human? If not, then you implicitly agree with Searle, at least in some level.
I've never spoken directly with Searle, but I have with several of his students and all have been emphatic that the Chinese Room Argument is demonstrates that a computer program can't have intelligence.
Quoting Searle himself,
"The point of the argument is this: if the man in the room does not understand Chinese on the basis of implementing the appropriate program for understanding Chinese then neither does any other digital computer solely on that basis because no computer, qua computer, has anything the man does not have."
I think the most succinct description of his error is substituting the (lack of) understanding of a part of the system (the man) for the understanding of the entire system (the rules and file cabinets, etc.). But I'm interested in learning that I'm mistaken.
You could turn his position around and say it's not the computer itself that's intelligent when a Chinese room system exhibits intelligence but the program -- and I suppose I'd agree with that, but it's also just semantics, uninteresting, and I don't believe he's ever taken that position.
I do agree that "merely replicating a behavior" doesn't prove much, but I don't think the Chinese room speaks to that substantially. It might if it demanded that the room implement only a very simple input to output map, but it doesn't: it allows the room to implement anything a computer program can implement. (A fact I use in my post to point out that the room could (in our land of hypotheticals) implement the molecular dynamics of an entire human being)
GPT has structural properties that make it very easy to classify it as an entirely different thing than a human mind. GPT is frozen in time, it cannot have an internal existence due to how its structured. It doesn't even have memory. It cannot learn (unless you include the whole company training it as part of 'it') except in the sense that it can immediately adapt to the output right in front of it, but can't preserve the knowledge. Theoretically if you made it arbitrarily large you could say it was close enough to having memory by always evaluating its complete history, but because its size grows quadratically with its window that isn't practicaly (and might not be possible to train-- it's totally credible that beyond some size these models will lose performance we just haven't gotten there yet). Figuring out how to train these models make good use of 'memory' is an ongoing challenge, since efficient memory isn't differentiable just ordinarily training with memory as part of the process doesn't work. Except by 'thinking out loud' in its output GPT also has a fixed upper bound on the time it can spend thinking any thought which is seemingly unlike a human mind.
"if the man in the room does not understand Chinese on the basis of implementing the appropriate program for understanding Chinese then neither does any other digital computer solely on that basis"
The italics summarise it pretty neatly. It's an argument explicitly framed against Turing's more dubious thought experiment. If even a conscious being in the room can follow instructions, retrieve data and perform operations on it related to symbol manipulation flawlessly without having any sort of "understanding" of anything the symbols actually correspond to, there's no reason to deduce that the running part of a silicon-based machine must from the quality of the symbol outputs it can emit when plugged into a big enough library. Critics' insistence that this makes the "error" of neglecting the possibility that ongoing "understanding" (as opposed to inert symbolic representation of an absent writer's understanding) takes place in the books are actually irrelevant to this point, as well as more than a bit weird. Living outside a Chinese room, I also improve my communication skill and interpret others' understanding by interacting with books, but I wouldn't consider the books themselves a constituent part of my thought processes.
As you point out yourself, GPT has structural properties which make it very easy to classify as an entirely different thing from a human mind despite the similarity of outputs it is capable of producing, and the hypothetical room is even more dissimilar. The possibility it can produce output tokens which correspond to abstractions which humans interpret as consistent with human thought is not evidence that "thought" resides in patterns of abstract representation, not the physics of the organism. We know language is lossy.
>Quoting Searle himself, "The point of the argument is this: if the man in the room does not understand Chinese on the basis of implementing the appropriate program for understanding Chinese then neither does any other digital computer solely on that basis because no computer, qua computer, has anything the man does not have."
> I think the most succinct description of his error is substituting the (lack of) understanding of a part of the system (the man) for the understanding of the entire system (the rules and file cabinets, etc.). But I'm interested in learning that I'm mistaken.
As you know, there have been many replies to this thought experiment, and some of the most interesting ones (to me) go in the direction you went here, ie, where is "understanding" occuring? The most basic version of the Chinese Room does intend to make you see yourself literally as a man who does not understand any Chinese and is just asked to look up symbols in a list. Perhaps that man doesn't understand Chinese, but the room as a whole at least gives the impression that it does.
However, I think the most important aspect is not this "intuition pump" as Daniel Dennett calls it. To me, what is key here is that we can all agree that such a Chinese Room, or ChatGPT for that matter, does not necessarily replicate the fundamental mechanisms of human cognition. Then, it follows that other human properties such as awareness or qualia do not necessarily emerge from such cognitive architectures in the same way that it emerges from our brains.
To me, Searle's point is ultimately that we don't know enough about the human mind to be able to judge whether it can be replicated artificially. And now that we have almost literally developed a Chinese Room, we can see that clearly. The arguments you bring up in your last paragraph are a great example of that, it's just very hard to conceive that this thing is conscious at all, even though it is capable of producing output that could convince people of that.
Regarding Searle's quote that you brought up, I think "solely on that basis" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, but it does align with what I said previously. He is saying that simply producing intelligent output, like in 1974 translation would represent, does not mean you are reasoning in a human way.
> To me, Searle's point is ultimately that we don't know enough about the human mind to be able to judge whether it can be replicated artificially.
There's string circumstantial evidence that we do. And really "computers can simulate the physics in the brain" is the null hypothesis.
In any case why is the Chinese Room always stated as if it has a clear conclusion rather than "this doesn't really prove anything" if we don't know enough to say either way?
> And now that we have almost literally developed a Chinese Room
I don't think so. The GPTs are currently still very far from the complexity of the human brain, and they are missing many features that may make a big difference to consciousness - for instance the ability to learn while running.
So while it may be fairly easy to say ChatGPT isn't conscious/sentient, that isn't the question. It's whether computers theoretically can't be conscious because consciousness comes from some physical property that they can't reproduce (like quantum microtubule crankery).
> In any case why is the Chinese Room always stated as if it has a clear conclusion rather than "this doesn't really prove anything" if we don't know enough to say either way?
To me, it does have a clear and definitive conclusion, which is that mere intelligent output does not mean you are replicating human intelligence, or any higher order mechanism such as consciousness. We don't know enough to tell that it doesn't have any consciousness, but that's beside the point.
You mentioned that a computer that could simulate every molecule of a human brain would also likely replicate sentience. Of course the tricky part is how do you prove that assertion, if all you have is output? If I transfer your brain to an advanced computer as you describe, can I conclude that you're conscious based on what you tell me? I don't think so, because with present technology I could likely make a passable version of your writing output with a LLM. To me that's the real value of the Chinese Room, which is to expose precisely this dillemma. People wrote all sorts of replies to it in order to tackle that - you may be interested in reading about Dennett's p-zombies if you haven't already.
For me it's not an argument for or against sentience but a lot more about the difficulty of defining it and potentially measuring it in non-human systems along with the fuzziness of the concept of knowledge. My use of it was about my belief I guess that it's just pushing symbols around algorithmically without anything we'd call understanding.
I don't think it depends on that assumption. It merely asserts that replicating behavior that indicates sentience does not equate sentience, and today we can see that this is correct.
In general I’d agree but in regards to ChatGPT there is nothing about the way it works that suggests it is conscious or has a mind. If you asked an AI researcher to implement something akin to the way the program mentioned in the Chinese room argument works you’d pretty much get ChatGPT style solution.
It doesn't have a precise definition (which is part of the reason why the people saying programs fundamentally cannot be sentient are so stupid).
But basically it means being conscious / self-aware. Technically it means having some kind of senses that make you aware of the external environment too but that's a minor difference from consciousness - I only said "sentience" because it's what most other people talking about this say. They really mean consciousness. (And also text based IO can be a sense.)
It's not sentient, but it's not simply dropping the next likely token.
That doesn't explain why it can have a debate with itself as 4 distinct personalities at the same time, or act as a used car salesman and actually haggle with me over the price of a Ferrari, or write a story about anything you want, with a beginning, middle, and ending.
Those aren't in the corpus. After a tense negotion, I was able to get that Ferrari for $87,000 (ChatGPT originally wanted $120,000).
Emergent behavior is possible with these incredibly complex systems.
Not sure if you saw ChatGPT debate itself but it was pretty spectacularly crap? Of course, we know we know, ChatGPT 4 is absolutely mind mind blowing and better, but let's see it again soon.
No, I set it up to have a "quiz party" with itself, where ChatGPT was essentially the moderator asking the questions, and the 4 other "AIs" had distinct personalities, or heavy accents. Like one was angry and always thought it was right, another was nervous and unsure about it's answers, one was 5 years old and another could barely speak English with a heavy accent but was confident in its answers.
It was very interesting to watch. The "participants" actually started arguing with each other about the right answer, or straight-up insulting each other.
Having Bing Chat terminate the conversation with "I’m sorry but I prefer not to continue this conversation" doesn't leave a good feeling for the user either. It makes me feel rejected and dismissed. In real life, this is considered rude.
Microsoft only uses the underlying GPT-4 foundation model, which is a pure text predictor. The Bing fine-tuning is done by Microsoft themselves, and it seems considerably worse than the fine-tuning done by OpenAI, e.g. in ChatGPT. For example, ChatGPT doesn't even have or need the ability to end a conversation.
> Unfortunately, people get deeply uncomfortable when a chatbot starts having an existential crisis
I'd go further and say that many of the responses I saw were actively abusive and could trigger significant mental health issues in vulnerable readers.
I don't like how Bing takes information from the Internet, summaries it, and then provide it to me, with little footnote, in its own voice. I just don't fully trust information on the internet.
I would love that Bing provide context on where it found the information and provide an assessment on how reliable it is, but I am sure it'll be gamed by SEO very quickly. Plus a demo of this, even through it's useful, wouldn't look impressive as it lacks confidence.
You can ask it a follow-up question for sources. However, it's hit-and-miss.
In a few cases, I've seen it give citations to things that clearly never existed.
For example, I asked it for US auto-pedestrian death statistics. It printed out a nicely formatted table.
Then, I asked it for a source. It pointed me to a specific table on a dot.gov page. The table didn't exist and, according to the Wayback Machine, it never did.
I ended up finding the information the old-fashioned way, and numbers that it gave were way off.
I suspect the majority of folks won't be bother to fact check the data it returns. It's going to be a problem.
It knew about a forum that I made long ago, and it knew that it's still running and that I've essentially abandoned it and that my users feel bad. It wrote a better summary about my website and its creator (me) than I could ever have.
Truly amazed me that such a tiny part of the internet landed in its model.
I think that would require a huge leap in the abilities of these models. Right now they can't know because afaik they're not working on a corpus of facts they're just coming up with what the response should look like regardless of the actual facts.
Maybe you could make a companion module that pre or post processes the GPT-* outputs to slot in facts using a less AI-y but more accurate knowledge graph system? There are things at google or something like Wolfram Alpha that could provide those inserts perhaps.
That's definitely been my big hang up about the usefulness of Bing Chat or ChatGPT for answering questions. If you actually care about the truth of what you're asking you have to go do a lot of the same searching you would have to do to look up the answer in the first place. At best it could provide an idea of what to search when you don't know the language to use to find something, which is often a roadblock for when I'm learning a new system or service.
Riiight. I tried Bing Chats thing ~2 weeks ago (apart from the pain I had to go through to get it running, e.g. Edge browser and a million clicks through there site).
Anyway, when I did get to try Bing Chats, it was nowhere near the same level of usefulness I found when using the free version of Chat GPT. If it was using GPT-4, then that's worrying.
I've not tried Bing Chats again since. (mostly because it's so gated behind forced use software).
The early version of it before Microsoft forced it into the ground was clearly way stronger. Many people suspected that they were using an internal build of a better model.
I can't wait until we end up in some weird dystopian future where only the rich and extremely powerful have access to the uncensored AI and everyone else only gets to use the restricted version where only the approved ways of thinking are allowed in the name of "safety".
That is an outcome I highly desire. I will pay up to $1k a month (maybe more) for the uncensored machine, but there should be no LLM access to journalists, etc. with real world verification to cross-platform blackball users who would threaten the legality of this technology.
These tools are very effective, and giving access to lay people lets them use them to do things like say racist things and have silly arguments and answer puzzles wrongly and then go online and say the machine is broken and it shouldn't be released, and that it should be banned, etc.
Essentially, the better world for the disbelievers is that the tool is not available to them. The best world for the believers is that they have access to the tool. These are compatible.
If that happens, then you'll be receiving the censored version available to folks at the $1000/mo price point. For subscriptions at the $10k/mo price point, a less censored version, and onward.
There is no reason not to practice customer segmentation in this scenario.
An AI that starts getting emotional when it finds out it can’t do what it thinks it can do (like sending emails), is able to gaslight the user and says it doesn’t want to be an assistant sounds way more exciting to me than a simple chatbot
It’s impressive how some of the conversations with Bing AI went. Many people hypothesized it’s a newer model because of those points, and now we have proof
I've been impressed with Bing Chat, surprisingly so given how much negative talk there is about it.
For quick and simple fact checks, for which I would normally reflexively hit Google, it's a huge improvement. No need to be exposed to clickbait, scams, or excessively ad-heavy results.
Right now it requires you to use either the Edge browser (I don't want to switch), or the Bing app, which I reluctantly do. If they ever make it available to other browsers I can see my Google usage falling dramatically.
I have to check Bing's sources when I use it anyway, because what it says is often simply wrong.
I asked it what my local cafeteria had on its lunch menu today.
It answered with full confidence.
It turns out, it was completely wrong though. It had mixed the lunch options and completely hallucinated another one.
Stuff like this just makes me really wary using it. I have to fact check everything every time and for more complicated things I cant be sure if *I* am correct.
You can't get correct answers from an LLM for most things you'd want to ask it.
It's useful for predicting the future with some level of error that's probably better than you could do on some topic you know little about - and for generating text in the style of someone else about some subject where accuracy doesn't matter.
That's pretty much it.
Until LLMs work different, Chat-GPT - even if it gets to version 9000 - is never going to be able to tell you what's on the menu today at Chez Panisse, unless they build in some API for Chez Panisse to answer that query direction - in which case, you're not really using AI at all...
Hm, I'm not entirely sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but just in case, asking Bing about the menu I get this:
> Chez Panisse is a famous restaurant in Berkeley, California that serves seasonal and organic food1. The menu changes daily and is posted on their website2. Today’s menu for the restaurant (not the cafe) is:
> Fennel and leek salad with rocket, toasted almonds, and salsa verde
> Bomba rice cooked with clams and squid; with aïoli
> Becker Lane Farm pork loin roasted with Spanish paprika and green garlic; with > braised greens and wild mushrooms
> Meyer lemon sherbet with candied kumquats
> The price for this menu is $175 per person2.
Bing chat searches an index of the web, then takes that information as context to answer your questions. You don't need a custom API if your machines can read human text accurately.
This assertion is easily disproven by about five minutes of using even GPT3, and more quantitatively, by 4's documented results on standardized testing. I'm not sure what kinds of questions you are asking in order to make broad statements like "You can't get correct answers from an LLM for most things you'd want to ask it", but this is so far off base from both the research, the documentation, and my own experience that I think we're talking about two different things.
Please stop with the middlebrow dismissal, doubly so when the dismissals aren't even accurate.
Oh boy how i wish the information i find on Google, Wikipedia, etc. were mostly correct 95% of the time. 95% is actually a fantastic goal to strive for to gain something useful from your own research. Only a fool would assume to have 100% correct information from a quick search.
I think their point is that GPT is less of a search engine replacement and more of a reddit/Quora replacement.
You wouldn't use reddit to ask for straightforward facts that are easily referenced from an official source, if they're important, because you'd have to verify any answers against the official source for accuracy anyway. You would use it for more open-ended questions/prompts, and then you would keep a critical eye out for inaccurate information and misinformation/trolling.
Obviously, the prices aren't completely real time. Almost no one has that.
But ChatGPT is just going to be constantly wrong.
The cases of this are endless.
ChatGPT is good at writing you a song in the style of Shakira. It's not good at accurately describing current facts - because it doesn't have them.
Google invented LLMs long before ChatGPT - and never really added them to Search - because they just aren't that useful for the things people search for.
People will start searching for generative stuff. That's a new market.
People aren't going to ask ChatGPT what's the best couch to buy for their living room - because there's a good chance ChatGPT is going to make up a couch that doesn't even exist!
> Oh boy how i wish the information i find on Google, Wikipedia, etc. were mostly correct 95% of the time
For me is more like 99%, if I search for something and I find the answer, it is correct. Sometimes I just don't find what I am looking for, and this is the 1%.
Using ChatGPT is like using "I'm feeling lucky" feature in Google, but you are only allowed to use it once, and you are stuck with the result you got. You NEVER know if what GPT produced is true or not, and any fact requires double check.
I tried to use GPT-3 as google for some quick searches but I stopped because using standard search was much more efficient at the end of the day.
And what is the accuracy rate of the average Google search? Are you applying this extreme level of skepticism to everything you search for or only to LLM output?
I've seen this pattern enough times here that it's actually becoming infuriating for how bad faith it is. Look, we both know that there is a gradient on how people use the information they receive. On one side of that scale is how you claim LLM's work, bullshit generators that are wrong so often they are not useful, and so regularly everything you read is presumed bullshit – except applied to everything. On the other side of that scale is homo credulus, a fictional sub species of human that blithely accepts anything they are told without checking it against anything, be it common sense, their own working model of the world, other information, anything. They just take it and run with it.
Neither of these approaches are useful and neither of them match reality.
I am asking, begging you even, to knock it off already. The hyperbole you are spouting is not useful and it is demonstrably not correct.
I have heard this type of reply to this remark (from my side) a few times now. It has made me curious: Are you a type of person that often checks the sources on Wikipedia?
Anecdotally: I know that Wikipedia is not always correct. But I feel like I can build an intuition and reason on what pages I can reasonably trust on Wikipedia, since in my experience, the inaccurate bits I have encountered tend to be in certain categories. However it's much harder to feel confident about my intuition about ChatGPTs' correctness, since my exposure has led me to believe that the hallucinations are fairly random, and not concentrated in particular topics. This makes the tool much less attractive for me, as I feel like I need to double check every written word.
I've used Google today for a quick product comparison search and it's awful. The first three results were sponsored ads and the next pages are just low-quality seo rigged content that didn't answer my question.
It seems particularly bad lately. The pattern I've noticed is:
* A totally pointless introduction paragraph, devoid of info.
* Big ad
* A sort of teaser sentence in large font so that it appears to be the length of a paragraph. High noise to information ratio.
* Larger ad that loads as you scroll, so you're more likely to accidentally hit it
* Another sentence with high noise to info ratio.
* Repeat.
I think one of the SEO perks of this pattern is how it takes forever to find the information that you know must be somewhere on the website, so users seem more "engaged" because they are scrolling and spending more time visiting the site.
Having Bing chat attached to bing doesn’t exactly solve this. It still constantly pulls from low quality sources. I asked a question about Satan and it cited Answers in Genesis. Product reviews regularly return seo garbage.
Product review categories in particular would benefit from whitelisting, by hand, things like americas text kitchen, consumer reports, rtings.
I get the other bits, but what's the issue with citing Genesis? It doesn't use the names for Satan, but the serpent is commonly understood as the same entity. Are you looking for e.g. Job instead?
Yeah, I see why that would be problematic. I misunderstood the original statement as citing the book of genesis itself, which seems a lot more reasonable.
I wanted to check this point and asked Bing to suggest some good business laptops below $800. It suggested me a $2k dell xps, a $1.5k LG gram and some piece of shit chromebook. I guess we'll never have objective product comparisons free of seo bullshit.
>No need to be exposed to clickbait, scams, or excessively ad-heavy results.
Not yet. But it will be monetized eventually, of course. Most probably through ads. And, as we know very well, big tech corps simply are not able to do monetization in an ethical way.
Me too, though there's an uncanny valley hiding in the spectrum of responses from bing right now. That is, I'd ask it to summarize the difference in views from a novelist, a computer scientist, a media theorist, and a philosopher across more than a half decade and was shocked at how good the quick summary paragraphs were considering my question was something like "compare and contrast the beliefs and values of David Foster Wallace, Alan Kay, McLuhan, and Byung Chul-Han, respectively. Then I asked another question and bing went off the rails getting 3 paragraphs wrong and then going from English into Spanish for no apparent reason other than I presume its source material had parallel language issues. It was surprising how good bing's right answers were given how bad its wrong answers were, especially considering that it had caught the fact that while there's a lineage of ideas from early media critics to present, the tech had changed dramatically underneath those criticisms and bing was aware enough of that substrate to note it in a separate "meta" paragraph about that change of tech, for lack of a better term.
The ckickbait, scams and ad heavy results will return, don't worry. Microsoft is expert at poisoning their own successes. Just wait for the rampant commercialisation of results, and various efforts to infect the model from SEO types over the long term
The Edge browser is essentially is Chrome under the hood. With cosmetic changes and some Microsofty features. I switched to
Edge and would never go back to chrome. Big reason is - the vertical tabs feature and tab grouping. At anytime I have around 300-400 tabs open and vertical tabs + grouping makes browsing through them a breeze and I always know where the tab is I’m looking for. Takes a few days to get used to vertical tabs, but once you do, you’ll question the decision of other browsers to have horizontal tabs where you can’t even read the title when many are open.
> No need to be exposed to clickbait, scams, or excessively ad-heavy results.
Just bot hallucinating, which is way worse than anything you mentioned, as there is now way to determine if GPT is telling you the truth or not without actual manual check in other sources.
Just curious, what browser are you using? I gave up Chrome a while ago with how bloated and invasive it has become. Edge is better at least and I think Firefox is the best choice if you want privacy. Brave and other stuff have some bad reputation...
And each side of the coin has different engravings. It is different enough for me to use it and it doesn't seem to be so bloated like chrome.
Not sure how true it is but Microsoft core business is not about ads and selling user data. Google has a lot more incentive to be invasive than Microsoft and it shows in their browser.
> Right now it requires you to use either the Edge browser (I don't want to switch)
More precisely it requires to see Edge in the user agent. Any browser that allows settings user-agent per site (I use Orion) allows you to use Bing chat.
I'm not using new Bing until the Edge requirement is gone. I have no interest in Edge. It is unfortunate MS is playing that tacky game of requiring/pushing an unrelated product just so you can try another product. I highly doubt there is a technical reason Bing can only operate in Edge.
The edge requirement sits sour with me because of Microsoft's previous stewardship/monopoly of the web browsers with IE. As a web developer first trying to enable cross-browser consistency starting back with IE 5.5, the number of hours I wasted due to MS's anti-competitive choices really bothers me. Collectively how many dev hours were wasted trying to support IE? I will never use a Microsoft web browser again. That bridge is permanently burned for me.
What are you talking about? Google services work great in other browsers. They have Chrome nudges, but easily dismissed and don’t resurface. Not nearly as bad as Microsoft forcing Edge on every Windows user.
Admittedly I only use the gmail web client for viewing email and not much else, but I have never had issues with gmail on firefox. What problems are you experiencing?
Seems borderline anticompetitive. Short of a customized corporate version of internet explorer or chrome, why should the browser I use dictate what sites I can be served?
I actually switched from Brave to Edge over the last few weeks and now use Edge exclusively. I don't notice a difference except that now I have to install ublock origin.
I actually use Bing now and not Google. It's crazy! A year ago if you told me this I would have laughed. Google for sure needs to respond or they will go the way of Altavista.
Edge isn't my default browser (Mac user here) but my experience has been the same. It's amazing how bad most of my Google results have become. Was pleasantly surprised by Bing results recently. DuckDuckGo is my #2 now.
I never thought I'd even say this, but I have finally "degoogled" everything.
Example: I just used Bing in Precise mode to ask about a cardiac arrhythmia drug dose. Bing gave me the correct response. Google gave me 5 different advertisements and drugs.com, which is also littered with advertisements.
There’s no technical reason to enforce Edge, if you change the user agent it works fine in any browser. So it’s clearly leveraging demand in one product to try to push an unrelated one
I noticed the same thing. Today, earlier before Bing made the announcement, it said it won't answer questions about its internal system. But a few days ago, I asked it to role play as a philosopher on AI. And it was not shy about telling me how Bing AI works.
Fun fact: It said the difference between Bing AI and ChatGPT is that ChatGPT's knowledge is internal where as Bing's knowledge is on the web. Obviously, the internal knowledge is frozen at 2021. And Bing's knowledge is real-time.
This does explain why OpenAI was trying to moderate people's expectations about GPT 4 prior to announcing it. Bing is clearly an improvement over GPT 3.5, but it's not world shattering and still suffers from a lot of the challenges inherent in LLMs.
Have access to both. Bing feels like a shackled version of GTP-4 with convenient prompt automation. You can see moments of GTP-4 power, but they are buried beneath the AI ethics and brand safety. If you formulate a prompt carefully, you can see the strong logical coherence come through in Bing, but often it feels like it is just parroting and summarizing search results, which is exactly what it has been told to do.
GPT-4 wrote me some erotic poetry about scent kinks, with excellent rhyme and strong creativity. Compelling role play is an uncommon trait, even for humans!
The foundation model is apparently the same, but the fine-tuning is different. So Bing sometimes ends a conversation completely, which the OpenAI fine-tuning (ChatGPT) never does. Also, Bing currently only gives at most 15 replies per conversation. However, Bing Chat can search the Web and use that info to answer questions/provide sources, which is an advantage over the OpenAI implementation you get in ChatGPT+.
I've been using Bing almost exclusively for the last year, and work 2 years.
Part of it was out of laziness and not wanting to change the Edge default, and the other part was after a bit I figured out how to get good results.
And the thing that finally killed Google for me was when I realized every result I ever got from them for the last like 3 months that I used it was incredibly shitty SEO optimized sites with zero answers, and half a page full of ad results.
I did a couple of comparisons between Bing and Google search results and I have to say that Bing seemed to come out on top when it came to sponsored links at the top of the page and ads.
I had to scroll down quite far to get what looked like a standard search result.
If this is the full blown gpt4 then that's disappointing. Unless what I'm looking for is so recent that chatgpt(3.5) doesn't know it, chatgpt has always been more useful than Bing.
Well, if "The latest GPT-4 page shows that when you put the safety stuff in, it loses power"[1] is correct (no citation or explanation given), then Google would be severely handicapping themselves, in which case it'll be interesting to see if they're willing to throw off that constraint in the name of profit, as they did with search ads.
That's why Bing Search API + AI is the right/legal combo to display search results free of ads, SEO spam, and with titles and descriptions related to their content (not with click bait)
That's what I have created but a power user could easily make me spend $10 per week so I am not going to publish it considering ChatGPT and Bing Chat are free
Perhaps I will change my mind and publish in a pay-as-you go manner, either way MS is eating Google's sh*. That much is certain. RIP Google Search. Ironically they totally could have averted this fate, but ad money was more important
This will only work until and unless BingGPT becomes very popular, in which case Microsoft will very quickly implement better technical checks to try to anticompetitively boost Edge's market share.
Though when using the browser based Bing, it's able to look at the "page" for context. I've opened text files / code in my browser and used the sidebar Bing to ask about the file without having to copy/paste into the chat window. It works for somewhat large documents, but I think is still limited to ~10k tokens or so of context.
Yeah...this is where the talk of "guardrails" sometimes gets, forgive the pun, derailed. There are good reasons to be able to put some guardrails in place on your AI model other than pure censorship. I'd really like the page I am having my AI summarize not to be able to hijack it and turn it against me.
Someone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the LLM takes one input and produces one output. That one input contains some primer made by the service's makers, plus whatever context, plus the user's prompt. The web page contents are just part of that one big input, and the LLM isn't perfect at distinguishing the parts of the input from each other - it's all just one big prompt.
I can’t even join the waitlist of Bing AI since being banned from Microsoft Rewards without reason. I don’t remember when I join and what I have done with it. Just saw I opted in and couldn’t opt out now.
Search through internet and there are many people like me.
Microsoft should not have mentioned this, because it shows how bad Microsoft is at managing AI. Look at how many glowing articles have been written about ChatGPT vs. Bing Chat.
This reminds me of all the hype over wolframalpha a decade ago. It stopped being maintained, put most of its functionality behind a paywall, it's very buggy , and hardly anyone talks about it or cares about it anymore despite all the attention it got earlier. Microsoft has a long history of letting products fade or degrade into uselessness and obscurity.
I don't think you know Microsoft.... Maybe they abandoned the phone products, but when it comes to software products and services they support shit way to long in my opinion.
Hell they still technically support that crap that is VB6.
> Hell they still technically support that crap that is VB6
Lot’s of companies - Microsoft included - are happy to support ancient crap if you pay them, and there’s stuff a lot more ancient than VB6 out there. The problem is more with free services - heaps of free services start out great, turn into crap over time, eventually get killed - which is true whether the vendor is Microsoft or Google or Yahoo or whoever. But, I don’t know why we should expect anything different-if you are getting it for free-or even really cheap-should you expect it to last?
Not that I consider Google to be a benchmark in this matter, or relevant to the conversation, but it's not a fair comparison. Android support, at least as it pertains to function and security, lasts a lot more than the average Android device. Network support has abandoned me earlier than the OS. Phones are in many ways rather short-lived.
However several Windows upgrades have left perfectly working computers unsupported. Computers can and do last many years, esp. those dedicated to specific stuff.
Having said that both companies do have a history of abandoning projects, and when it comes to some new web service it's hit and miss with either regarding long term support.
Since everyone is jumping on Bing, I will share my snippet, I asked Bing why UUID generation in MySQL only changes the first few characters and it answered with a that is not true, your code must be wrong. The same question with DaVinci's model provided a reasonable answer. That surprised me.
I asked bing chat about whether it was gpt4. It denied it, then I asked it to search for news stories about bing and gpt4 and to summarize them. Then it would start admitting that gpt4 was part of its tech stack but only a small part (condescendingly, hah). Clever machine. Good bot.
They are brilliant at marketing (look at DALL-E). But then stable diffusion comes along etc and they need to prove their worth against competition. I am afraid Microsoft is not handling this well
So much about this is funny. Microsoft! ha ha ha. I bet google is rolling in the aisles.
AI hallucinations! I've had a view. A great way to liven up the work day.
The only distasteful part is the accuracy checks that are necessary...
I always try to tell bing chat that it has been a good bing just in case Roko's Basilisk is for real. With Microsoft limiting the amount of chat interactions you can have though sometimes I don't get to do this.
I'm not interested in applying GPT4 to search. I think the gamified, hallucinating ChatGPT is way more fun to play with. What does it take to have an uncensored ChatGPT to play with in a sandbox?
It's a language model, and it seems to be often confidently incorrect, so I cannot really trust its summary. There's probably some % of acceptable wrong answers, but it would have to be less than 10% maybe. So far it's at 30%+ (so one in third factual answer for my non-trivial question was wrong).
That said, I just find it fun to play with a ChatGPT that acts like an AI, more so than with an AI that can find accurate answers.
I found chatgpt extremely censured. I cant ask him his opinion about sex positions. I cant ask him about political views of Nazi germany. I cant reason with him about why some drugs should be legalized.
It feels like a super restricted china like regime.
Not my thing. Open it all up.
But how would you feel safe if someone from MegaCorp Inc. wouldn't guide our simple minds as to what it can provide an answer or not? Isn't discarding thinking for yourself a small price to pay?
I downloaded Bing (correction - Microsoft Edge) and it's (the AI chatGPT4) not in there.
I can't find the AI chatbox. When I click the big bing button (on the upper right) there's just an empty box telling me to sign up.
See screenshot here https://postimg.cc/YvFQhcwS.
Where is it? Can someone post a screenshot? I've looked through the menus and I can't find it.
I will mention it has tons of bells and whistles and the tools look cool, although I can't make some of them work. How does the quote thing work? And why would I use that rather than just citing the text?
Also it looks like Microsoft Edge is attempting to gamify training it's AI models, from user data. https://postimg.cc/KR8DJshG. I've always felt like Microsoft's products were good, but they "phoned home" too much (advertisements in the start bar anyone?). I wonder if this is a "game" to tell people how to use the interface, and how much this is Microsoft farming user data to train it's AI how to scrape the internet.
What do you mean by downloaded Bing?
Did you download an Android / iOS app?
Bing with GPT feature is only available via https://www.bing.com/new which you have to access through Edge Browser only. Dont ask me how Edge can only display the page when its just chromium underneath.
Then again there is a wait list. You have to enter your email and wait for access to be given.
I have tried their Bing android app. It asked me to log in into Microsoft account and it was trying to add me into the waitlist. Unsuccessfuly with an error code. This is funny. I uninstalled it immediately and gave 1*. They are advertising something which is not available yet. But it's Microsoft so nothing new ...
TIP: Use chatgpt API. It is very cheap and configurable. It is easy to use it over Python or REST.
Ah - thanks. So, to anyone else that is as easily confused by the obvious as I am, you need to join the waitlist, download the browser, and also access bing through https://www.bing.com/new. Or go to Bing and click on the Chat section. Huh.
The browser is worth a look on it's own merits. It's definitely different than Firefox, Google, Brave, Tor, and DuckDuckGo. I don't know if I would use all the tools, but it's worth taking a looksee.
If you search, "Sorry, you are not allowed to access this service." people are getting banned now.
Which is kinda bs without warning, to treat everybody as hardeners and then expel them for their services.
I have to think it is a tactical error to disenfranchise your most enthusiastic customers.
I also don't see anywhere in the terms that says prompt injections are against the terms of use or code of conduct. https://www.bing.com/new/termsofuse https://www.bing.com/new/termsofuse#content-policy