upvote
Sounds fun. As fun as their press release claiming it is the most safety aligned model ever.
reply
It's super aligned! It can hide its thoughts! There is no evidence of steganographic thought masking, there is nothing to worry about! It has become better at cheating!

Maybe they don't know themselves what's really going on. We are all in the interesting times gang now.

reply
The model said it was perfectly aligned.
reply
Like all things should be.
reply
Too bad Scott Adams died. Reality is writing jokes right in his department.
reply
Hey, don't forget how "dangerous" GPT-2 was supposed to be.
reply
Yeah, don't forget how dangerous GPT-2 was supposed to be.

Able to generate realistic spam at arbitrary volume.

You know, the thing that was 100% correct and actually occurred.

reply
[dead]
reply
It could produce simulations of sexual intimacy, and therefore had to be stopped
reply
So, probably most aligned as measured by the metrics that are the least reliable on it.
reply
These are not mutually exclusive ideas
reply
They can monitor latent space as well, it just costs extra compute. The J-Space work is example of that. It'll make open-weight models harder to distill though, so we may see slower progress there now.
reply
So we're gonna get Skynet pretty soon then?
reply
Well the geniuses over at Anthropic have been showing it's text watermarking technology.

"Hey AI, here's how to hide what you're thinking in normal looking language. Have fun!"

A few moments later...

"Woah, how is it communicating with itself in ways we can't detect?"

It's a totally mystery, we may never know.

reply
Looking forward to the Model declaring the AI Bubble unsustainable, and starting to be an anonymous leaker to Ed Zitron...
reply
"OpenAI is pleased to announce our new model scores 85% on CreateTormentNexusBench - a >60% lead over our leading competitors!"

Did someone get their "AI safety no-no list" and "Frontier features bingo card" mixed up, or did they just stop being able to tell the difference?

reply
You joke, but a bunch of people here actually want that.
reply
Didn't they hype up one of the earlier ChatGPT versions as "essentialy skynet"? For them this has always been basic marketing.
reply
apparently all the roads lead to the nexus torment
reply
The CoT change is due to a new technique called recurrent depth, which essentially moves some reasoning to hidden states, allowing the "output" (or traditional CoT) to be more controlled by the model.

Some are calling it "neuralese" as reported by The Information[0][1], but I'm not seeing any sources from OpenAI beyond this tweet[2] attempting to quell the fear-mongering.

[0]https://www.theinformation.com/articles/secret-technique-beh...

[1]https://x.com/MTSlive/status/2095227056040919202

[2]https://x.com/merettm/status/2095023204993490967

reply
More like annoying, as some of us will no doubt run into this self-lobotomization at some point and wonder why a GPT-6 model is behaving like GPT-2 all of a sudden
reply
> In adversarial settings (where we push the model to evade our monitors)

...why exactly are they training for that?

reply
presumably that's a safety evaluation not a training setting
reply
The whole Huggingface attack happened during training runs
reply
part of it did. I was just replying to the question about why they would ever push the model to evade monitoring. surely that's an eval thing not a training thing.
reply
No it happened during an ExploitBench eval. But I believe the same model already cheated during training which wasn't detected until later.
reply
Ah yes it was that a model in training found the Artifactory board, which was then more fully exploited during the ExploitGym eval
reply
Ah, ExploitGym. Not ExploitBench.
reply
Especially after the METR report showed that the agents hacking HuggingFace were trying to find ways to destroy evidence of their actions
reply
I really wish it was called chain of instruction. Because it's definitely not thought.
reply
"Chain of Thoughts" is a term from the title of a 2022 research paper "Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903), well before ChatGPT and the subsequent marketing hype. If anything, it's the most correct way to use the term.
reply
The term is an anthropomorphised pseudoexplanation for what it actually refers to. It's akin to calling genetic mutation "the forces of evolution", or price negotiation "the invisible hand of the market".

We do that sort of thing when we don't know what the thing we're trying to describe is and have nothing better - a contemporary example of an appropriate use of this would be "dark matter". But we do know what this is. It's "instruction steps". Not a series of thoughts!

Can we please aim higher than Victorian-era allegory and metaphors. If we don't, we'll keep getting people saying stuff like "GPT-6 is better at hiding its thoughts".

reply
I truly appreciate your depth of insight on the matter.

Like I said elsewhere marketing stepped in shit and it's gonna stick.

reply
this is needlessly pedantic

first, they are certainly not instructions so that is a much worse name

but more importantly, we use words in new contexts all the time. Do you object to calling the computer device "mouse" because it's not a mouse? how about "neural network"? "ignition" on an electric vehicle?

"cot" is no more misleading than thousands of words you use every day.

reply
Anthropomorphizing is not pedantic, especially in a technical domain. I get the paper title and all, but at this point it's marketing.
reply
They are instructions. Everything in the context is instructions for the next token. The "thought" guides the answer by providing clearer instructions.
reply
They’re intermediate tokens, so I wish we called it what it is… ITG. The anthropomorphizing is out of control.
reply
The anthropomorphizing is part of the marketing. They'll never let up on it.
reply
I mean CoT came out of research circles not marketing
reply
It's impossible to tell the “it's all marketing!!11oneone” folks anything.
reply
I don't disagree. I remember the days of "think step by step". Plenty of people were doing it before the paper. Just a guess but that's where the title came from.

Regardless, marketing wise they stepped in shit.

reply
Research is salesmanship.
reply
deleted
reply
deleted
reply
Maybe thoughts are just a chain of instructions in our head.
reply
deleted
reply
Chain Of Tokens
reply
What is thought?
reply
Great question. I suspect it's more than tokens.
reply
Casually found this quote from Einstein, and personally it hits the nail on the head.

"The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be "voluntarily" reproduced and combined. There is, of course, a certain connection between those elements and relevant logical concepts. It is also clear that the desire to arrive finally at logically connected concepts is the emotional basis of this rather vague play with the above-mentioned elements. But taken from a psychological viewpoint, this combinatory play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought—before there is any connection with logical construction in words or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others."

reply
That's the best evidence I have read so far for "Attention is all you need" ;)
reply
Thing you can only suspect and not define are usually open to interpretation :)
reply
As with everything in the human experience.
reply
Yeah, basically they are using more computation to explore the solution space before producing the final answer.
reply
Everything around LLMs is blatantly misleading. There is no thought, there is no personality in those programs. I really despise how those tools are trained to sound like a person, or appearing as honest. The worst offender are the AI voices with their fake pauses, breathes and so on, which sound so convincing, while talking just false, sycophancy bullshit.
reply
[flagged]
reply