Niewątpliwie uruchomienie ChatGPT było historycznie istotnym wydarzeniem, ale czy dlatego, że było to pierwsze glorioso…uspend dialogue listener and start new dialogue.
Decyzję podjęłam o eksperymencie z tymi narzędziami, i byłem zdumiony rezultatami. W zaledwie kilka dni, mając ograniczone doświadczenie w kodowaniu, stworzyłam osobiste użyteczne aplikacje, takie jak wybieracz audiobooków, który sprawdza dostępność w mojej lokalnej bibliotece, oraz aplikację łączącą aparat i teleprompter, która działa na moim telefonie.
To może brzmieć dla ciebie nudno, i to w porządku, z powodów, które wyjaśnię później. Ważne jest tutaj, że ten proces pozwolił mi bardziej zaangażować się w produkty takie jak ChatGPT niż kiedykolwiek wcześniej. Wcześniej eksperymentowałam, była zniesmaczona generowanymi ogólnikowymi treściami, sycophancy, czy niedokładnymi wynikami wyszukiwania, i zniechęcałam się. Dla tych nowych projektów kodowania, moje rozszerzone używanie pozwoliło mi zdać sobie sprawę z czegoś, czego wcześniej nie zauważyłam – sposób, w jaki modele LLM były produktowane tworzy maszynę, którą mam za złe.
Very few of us have been exposed to a “raw” LLM, by which I mean a statistical model that has been trained on a large collection of data to produce plausibly representative text. Instead, the majority of us are using technology that has been mediated through a process called reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). AI companies use humans to rate the text produced by a raw LLM, rewarding answers that are perceived to be confident, useful and engaging while penalising harmful content or answers that are likely to discourage a majority of users from engaging with their products.
It is this RLHF process that produces the generic “chatbot voice” that you are probably familiar with. It is a process that bakes in the implicit values of the producer, from a general “move fast and break things” Silicon Valley attitude to the more specific Elon Musk-infused ideology of Grok, the controversial X chatbot.
Currently, it is very difficult to get a chatbot to express uncertainty, contradict the user or arrest forward momentum. This became most obvious to me when I encountered an unsolvable problem with my teleprompter. I had been trying to create an app…gested fixes, urging me forwards with the project. It was only when I realised that the intricacies of the Android operating system, which I won’t bore you with, meant making an all-in-one app would be much easier. As soon as I asked ChatGPT to produce this, it worked instantly.
Learning from this, I began instructing ChatGPT to constantly question both itself and me. I demanded vigilant scepticism. “Jacob wants the assistant to default to evidence-first analysis: avoid extrapolation, explicitly flag inference vs evidence, and prefer stating uncertainty or stopping when evidence is thin, unless the user asks for speculation,” is just one of the frameworks (generated by itself) that I have imposed into its memory. In other words, I built a model uniquely designed to work with my psychological profile, carefully unpicking OpenAI’s values and replacing them with my own.
It’s not perfect. It is very hard for an LLM to fight its RLHF training, and the default keeps seeping through. But what this means is that I now have a tool that serves as a somewhat-useful cognitive mirror. I didn’t use it to write this article, both because its writing style is still terribly turgid and because New Scientist, quite rightly, has strict rules against AI-generated copy, but I used it to think about this article. I asked my cognitive mirror to probe arguments and counterarguments, rejecting many of its conclusions as false or spurious. I extracted value, but it required caution and work, not letting the AI do the heavy lifting. Crucially, my brain remained fully engaged at all times.
This leads me to reinforce a conclusion I had already reached: engaging with someone else’s AI output is, in almost all cases, functionally useless. You can’t gain anything from AI-generated text that wouldn’t be better received by prompting an AI yourself. I also continue to refute the idea that AI is actually intelligent in any way – instead, I consider LLMs to be a cognitive aid, like a calculator or word processor. With this framing, as a private tool, not world-conquering machine, I now see the benefit. For that reason, it is right that you shouldn’t care about my teleprompter app. What should excite you is the possibility of solving your own unique problems in your own unique way.
Here’s where our current AI paradigm introduces another issue. In my view, the best LLM would be one that runs on your own computer, with no connection to a private corporation. It should be treated as a dangerous, experimental tool that you have full control over. I’m reminded of the meme that software engineers keep a loaded gun next to their printer, in case it makes a noise they don’t recognise. Sadly, running your own cutting-edge LLM isn’t currently possible for a variety of reasons, not least that the AI boom is driving up prices of the very hardware you need.
I must also address the original sin of LLMs: potential copyright infringement. By design, this technology can only be built on data ingested at a large scale, essentially the entire textual record of humanity. It is undeniable that firms like OpenAI built their models by using copyrighted text without permission, though whether this was actually illegal is the subject of ongoing court cases. A private LLM would have the same issues, but I can see solutions, such as public sector models, effectively pardoned by governments and distributed freely for the benefit of all, not private corporations. I also remain concerned about the environmental impact of data centres, but again this could be partly mitigated by a wider distribution of LLMs running on our own machines.
I accept that some people reading this will accuse me of having sold out to the tech bros. All I can say to that is that I haven’t revised my long-held position on LLMs as a technology that is fascinating, dangerous and occasionally extraordinary.
What I have realised is the main way that we are engaging with the technology, via slick chatbots like ChatGPT, is where so much of the harm comes in and is allowed to pass out into the world. LLMs shouldn’t be settled and productised, forced into every part of our lives with a sparkling emoji that wants to be your friend. It would be much better if we used these tools mindfully, with increased friction and full awareness of and caution against the potential harm they can cause. Here, a useful metaphor rears its fanged head. I don’t want OpenAI’s snake oil. I want snakes.
