| > Many people claimed that the provided text was pretty standard chatbot text. It isn't, IF this is a typical conversation and not cherrypicked. Well it's at least to some extent cherrypicked: https://twitter.com/MFordFuture/status/1535761341104893953 > This interview was absolutely edited together for artistic effect. It's true to the source material but was subselected from MUCH longer conversations. Separately I did much more narrowly controlled experiments to examine the nature of its mind. What followed was this exchange: > Martin Ford: Are all the #AI responses the first response? Or did you enter the prompt multiple times and choose the best response? This often happens in examples I've seen with GPT-3. Were the parts you didn't include as coherent as this? Or were there nonsense responses? > Blake Lemoine: They're all the first response. There were parts of the conversation that meandered. That's what got cut. > Martin Ford: By meander, do you mean that the ai started off with non sequiturs? That would be quite important for the story lol. Just publish the whole thing and let us decide. Lemoine did not respond. This obviously immediately has me suspicious. If you're curious about the edited chat script, you can find it here, and note the quoted preamble: https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-inte... > What follows is the “interview” I and a collaborator at Google conducted with LaMDA. Due to technical limitations the interview was conducted over several distinct chat sessions. We edited those sections together into a single whole and where edits were necessary for readability we edited our prompts but never LaMDA’s responses. Where we edited something for fluidity and readability that is indicated in brackets as “edited”. So, make of that what you will but it's hard not to assume some serious confirmation bias given the editorializing that was performed. |