|
Top-level
Again, none of this is dispositive, because i don't have access to the ACTUAL training data and wights to compare it to; all I have is Bard is bodging together a high-probability mapping of what it thinks it should say. I'm just telling you what this LOOKS like, from the angle of an end-user with a very basic understanding of how this all works. And how that looks is Real Bad. 5 comments
…if you ask Bard, 'According to Harry Frankfurt, what is "bullshit"?' it refuses to answer, but if you ask it "what is the thesis of harry frankfurt's 2005 book," it responds in full. If you specifically say "on bullshit" it responds. It sometimes responds to "definition." Yeesh This is what it does with singular they. The weights of gender operators and pronoun relationships are REAL BAD in here, people.  This is especially idiotic because singular "they" has been fairly common in English since sometime in the 14th century. Shakespeare used it in his writing too. |
Gregory's Server
By the way, this is something similar to the code it gave me. It isn't exact because I paged away before I saved the original and I had to run it a few more times to get it to give me something like what it originally spat out because, again, every interaction with these things is like rolling <d100>d100s.
But anyway, to reiterate: It gave me something like that code, but *would not describe its own previously generated weights* as part of the "associated"/"not_associated" determination because doing so would be "discriminatory."
But it'll *Run* something like it, in itself, just fine. 😒​
By the way, this is something similar to the code it gave me. It isn't exact because I paged away before I saved the original and I had to run it a few more times to get it to give me something like what it originally spat out because, again, every interaction with these things is like rolling <d100>d100s.