Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #lamda
Most recents (4)
🧵 While #ChatGPT is grabbing the headlines, pushing @GoogleAI (#LaMDA) and @Baidu_Inc to rush their plans to launch competitors, maybe it’s time to explore the security/privacy concerns generative AIs raise.
Here's a #thread on some of these, brought to you by @InfosecurityMag.
Here's a #thread on some of these, brought to you by @InfosecurityMag.
@GoogleAI @Baidu_Inc @InfosecurityMag First, @OpenAI’s #ChatGPT has already been used to develop #malware and other malicious tools, as @a_mascellino reported on January 9, 2023. #encryption #cybercrime cc @SShykevich @_CPResearch_
infosecurity-magazine.com/news/chatgpt-d…
infosecurity-magazine.com/news/chatgpt-d…
@GoogleAI @Baidu_Inc @InfosecurityMag @OpenAI @a_mascellino @SShykevich @_CPResearch_ Here’s the original @_CPResearch_ report 👇
📢 New paper: Why do we fall for AI-generated language? #GPT #LaMDA
🔬 In 6 studies on how people identify generated text
🧐 We find people wrongly associate 1st person, family words, contractions,.. with humanity
🤖 Allowing AI systems to generate language MORE human than human
🔬 In 6 studies on how people identify generated text
🧐 We find people wrongly associate 1st person, family words, contractions,.. with humanity
🤖 Allowing AI systems to generate language MORE human than human
Across email, chat, and social media, AI systems produce smart replies, autocompletes, and translations. AI-generated language is often not identified as such but poses as human language, raising concerns about novel forms of deception and manipulation.
Online self-presentation is essential for establishing trust. We conducted six experiments asking participants (N = 4,650) to identify self-presentation text generated by current language models. Across settings we find that humans cannot identify AI-generated self-presentations.
Ein 🧵 zur Problematik, ob #LaMDA ein Bewußtsein entwickelt haben könnte, welche Komplexität hier oft übersehen wird und warum die Diskussion darüber in Teilen mehr über uns aussagt, als über die eigentliche Frage zu dieser #KI. 1/
Vorab: Die Frage, was Bewußtsein ist, wird von Fachgebiet zu Fachgebiet unterschiedlich definiert und eine praktikable Definition, die verläßlich an Individuen oder intelligenten Maschinen getestet werden könnte, gibt es leider nicht. Das ist Teil des Dilemmas. 2/
Einige Mitmenschen sind sehr schnell in ihrem Urteil, daß #LaMDA gar kein Bewußtsein habe entwickeln können. Eine Mehrzahl der Argumente beruft sich auf:
1) Es ist ein Chatbot
2) Es ist eine Maschine
3) Hat aus vielen Daten gelernt und arbeitet probabilistisch
3/
1) Es ist ein Chatbot
2) Es ist eine Maschine
3) Hat aus vielen Daten gelernt und arbeitet probabilistisch
3/
1/ A little late to the #LaMDA party, but here's my 2p for what it's worth 🧵. Basically, I agree with @GaryMarcus (& the vast majority of the AI/neuro community) that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that #LaMDA is conscious garymarcus.substack.com/p/nonsense-on-…
2/ #LaMDA is a highly impressive 'word sequence model' (h/t @rogerkmoore) which can give the impression of intelligent understanding, but it is a mistake to take this (variable) impression as evidence for actual intelligent understanding.
3/ In this sense, #LaMDA is fully in the tradition of previous chatbots, such as Eugene Goostman (b. 2014), for which grandiose claims were also made (both @GaryMarcus & I wrote about Goostman before, & the same points apply) neurobanter.com/2014/06/09/the…
