| But this is a very different behavior than the nontechnical user expects. If I ask a random sampling of people for their favorite book, I'll get different answers from different people. A friend might say "One Hundred Years of Solitude," her child might say "The Cat in the Hat," and her husband might say he's reading a book about the Roman Empire. The context matters. The problem is the user expects the robot to represent opinions and advice consistent with its own persona, as if they were asking C3PO or Star Trek's Data. The underlying architecture we have today can't actually do this. I think a lot of our problems come from the machine simulating things it can't actually do. This isn't hard to fix... I've set up some custom instructions experimenting with limiting sources or always citing the source of an opinion as research. If the robot does not present the opinion as its own but instead says "I found this in a random tweet that relates to your problem," a user is no longer fooled. The more I tinker with this the more I like it. It's a more honest machine, it's a more accurate machine. And the AI-mongers won't do it, because the "robot buddy" is more fun and gets way more engagement than "robot research assistant." |
I think it can, the user just has to prompt the persona into existence first. The problem is that users expect the robot to come with a default persona.