[stephenroller]

I would not encourage using the model for anything other than AI research -- we're still in the early days of dialogue, and there are a lot of unexplored avenues. There are still nuances around safety, controlling generation, consistency, and knowledge involvement. For instance, the bot cannot remember what you said even a few turns ago, due to limitations in memory size.

In the paper, we did explore what happens when you do NOT fine tune it on the specialized tasks (knowledge, empathy and personality). The non-finetuned bot was both less engaging and more toxic. The special finetuning is really important to getting this bot to be as high quality as it is.

[Cakez0r]

But toxicity and quality is subjective. The technical achievement is undeniably brilliant, but the quality of the personality is subject to opinion - as I mentioned, I did not personally enjoy the agreeability of the bot. What's toxic today may not be toxic tomorrow and vice versa.

It's just a matter of time before a model of this size can be run on commodity hardware and somebody will take the brakes off and/or attempt to run experiments that aren't just "can this thing pass the turing test?". I'd be really interested to know the thoughts of the team, given their expert knowledge and experience with the matter.

[sillysaurusx]

For a more toxic version of a similar kind of bot, check out SubSimulatorGPT2: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubSimulatorGPT2/top/?sort=top&t=al...

Unfortunately you can't talk to it. (I've wanted to retrain a version that you can interact with dynamically, someday.)

[bkanber]

The comment thread on the self-awareness post is both very convincing and really meta. I love how clear the training of the different bots is.

[Cakez0r]

Was the bot nonsensical without the fine tuning, or just subjectively a worse conversational partner?