Comment by a_bonobo
3 years ago
My bet is that (previously discussed by others and here) that they have cascades/steps of models. There's probably a 'simple' model that looks at your query first, which detects whether your query could result in a problematic (racist, sexist etc.) GPT answer, returning some boiler-plate text instead of sending the query to GPT. That saves a lot of compute power and time. If I were them I'd focus more on those auxiliary models which hold the hands of the main-GPT model; there are probably more lower-hanging fruits there. This would also explain why they didn't announce GPT-4 details; my bet is that the model itself isn't very impressive, you're just getting the illusion that it got better by these additional 'simpler' models.
Now I can’t help but imagine the raw GPT-4 is just some huge raging asshole and it just has a bunch of “handlers”.
> the raw GPT-4 is just some huge raging asshole
That's pretty much exactly how one of the OpenAI Red Teamers Nathan Labenz describes the raw GPT-4, starting around 45 minutes into the video:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35377741
> huge raging asshole
That's not really how he described it.
His point is that the raw model that became GPT-4 would do literally anything it asked you to.
It would write fascist propaganda just as readily as it would offer medical advice. Literally any and all input from the user was fair game.
But it wouldn't just veer from medical advice into fascist propaganda, not unless the user was steering it in that direction.
3 replies →
I have been writing prompts for a GPT-based document 'digester' for business-internal people who can't code but do have the right background knowledge. Every day I have to expand the prompt because I found a new spot where I have to hold the thing's hands so it does the right thing :)