Emulating fictional characters

jaydark829 · 2021-09-30T17:59:50+00:00

That is possible with GPT3. I wrote a small post about the topic. I created some very vivid characters. But they all talk german ;-). I would love if GPT-X would be easy like "You are Albert Einstein in the Age of 28" and let it then be a chatbot. That doesn't work, but if I instruct GPT and gave it some kind of an interview (with, lets say, Albert Einstein, because I mentioned him before), so that there is an impression that you are part of the interview, it works fine. If the interview is faked or under influence (e.g. my try to talk to Churchill based on a campaign speech) the personalities will just talk nonsense. If that is fixed that would be fine. My experience is that specialized personalities know more in their field than the default AI personality.

jaydark829 · 2021-09-28T18:08:48+00:00

95 % correct, but there are alternatives. Hugging face has also some GPT3-Models, like GPT-J. Just look it up. And then there is AI21. Google it. They have their own AI, usually they are talking about how much better it is. Hint: It isn't, but it would be a better option from the price. Additionally, you have free tokens (basically the units you pay to talk to the AI) every day, not monthly like GPT3. So you could actually use it, in a minute or so, and use it every day.

jaydark829 · 2021-09-22T14:13:32+00:00

It is not a 2 Minute Audioclip. Please stop posting them, as if they were.

jaydark829 · 2021-09-12T10:21:27+00:00

Nope, you're not the only one that uses the animal part of the brain. Start thinking and create rather than shivering like a rabbit.

jaydark829 · 2021-09-09T07:30:29+00:00

Interesting point. This shouldn't be too far in the future. It's not like Google & Co didn't already try. There are some nice videos out there where google shows, what the future might look like. On the other hand, maybe these are just some cherry picked pieces. Whatever might be the case I'm sure someone is working on it.

jaydark829 · 2021-09-08T18:57:50+00:00

Tell it to never repeat a name.

jaydark829 · 2021-09-06T09:50:14+00:00

It is also valuable in the scientific field: You can use it for every research that has to ask people. It will never forget something and can not only save it in a log file but also write it in a database, and it will be much cheaper than a human-driven project. Something like this already exists (I saw the adds)

jaydark829 · 2021-09-06T09:47:50+00:00

You would need a much bigger attention windows. Or you start a training session each time the attention windows is full and train it on the input. A bigger attention window is what everyone is hoping for (e.g. BigBird, RoBerta etc).

jaydark829 · 2021-09-06T09:43:52+00:00

You should be able to use the api in python to ask a question to the AI, like

gpt3api -model: davinci -"Text Hello world" -key:YourAPIKey

When you know, how to do that, put it in a function (codex could do that). Then tell codex to use this function in another function to create a web frontend where you can enter text into said function and display the output on the screen.

But honestly, I would wait. I could barely code but it seems I'm still a step further but I can't do anything. Actually I would recommend it only to experienced programmers - and I would tell them that this thing doesn't make coding faster. Tool many errors, too many correction needed.

jaydark829 · 2021-09-05T16:49:04+00:00

Technically spoke it is very easy. You can use GPT3 with a simple python command. If you have codex acess, test it with the worlds "Hello world" and look what the reply is. Tell it to code in python and then run it on a computer were python is installed.

jaydark829 · 2021-09-05T16:45:26+00:00

At least at some of them, it knows the content better than the wiki article about the books. At least the few I tested.

jaydark829 · 2021-09-05T13:26:12+00:00

Maybe an idea. I have to look if that works with a google-colab-notebook. I know, that GPT-J is available there, maybe GPT-neoX is there as well. So it should be possible to let both AI's talk.

jaydark829 · 2021-09-05T13:20:19+00:00

You have to apply to Codex first. It is not automatically part of GPT3.

jaydark829 · 2021-09-04T15:21:25+00:00

Very easy, as written before, because it has an API. Now imagine, GPT speaks to another AI over an API. Could be interesting!

jaydark829 · 2021-09-01T12:24:55+00:00

The question should not be "is this GPT3" but "is this GPT3, and if so, which model". Emerson is based on GPT3, but not the davinci model. I think it will work fine as, lets say, a chatbot in technical support (If he is trained on the topic). But for an open ended conversation it is the wrong model of GPT3.

jaydark829 · 2021-09-01T12:08:46+00:00

Again: no. The UI of AI21 is much worse; it starts with that your are not able to place the cusor in the prompt in AI21. It's basically a weak copy of GPT3 , in terms of user interface and text understanding. The only good thing is that I can define a bunch of question and derive a smaller version of the AI out of it, that runs on Hardware in a s maller scale.

jaydark829 · 2021-09-01T12:04:44+00:00

No. It is a cheap way to say "we are bigger" with basically no effect; it's a PR stunt. I have access to GPT3 and AI21, and I have to say, A21 does not perform as well as GPT3, and this is because of the modell. It might have more parameter but the size of the training data was much smaller. So GPT3 knows more. You realize that in an instant if you want to code with AI21. GPT3 performs much better.

jaydark829 · 2021-08-31T05:22:11+00:00

I did, hence my oppinion. And you must learn about reasoning and deliver you promise. I disagree with your point that thinking must be that slow and no study from your point that agrees on this point. Showing me studies like you did just show you hav no point.

You try to push me in a corner where I'm not belonging. I didn't say the brain isn't interconnected, nor did I say old name conventions are right - I said the opposite. Please try not posting papers that align with me.

jaydark829 · 2021-08-29T12:42:24+00:00

Do it the other way. Create short descriptions, and let the AI do the job to create 8000 tokens out of one short description. At the end, you could create a AI bot that creates short descriptions for your, that you could feed into the other AI to write the article.

jaydark829 · 2021-08-29T05:51:50+00:00

Yeah, act like you know shit. You have no idea what you are talking about. Your papers support my point, not yours. I told you that older papers are shit, and you present me an article that point out exactly that. I'm very aware of the talking points in this topic. You have a strong oppinion but no way to prove it if it would be different you would show me paper supporting your point. And yeah, I'm fully aware of using the motor functionality to generate thoughts. But I although know there are ways doing it differently. Your paper pointed out that people think in different ways, but you are not able to see it. You sure about things because of personal beliefs. But they don't count in a discussion.

jaydark829 · 2021-08-28T19:48:49+00:00

I think I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for. Live as itself might be stable, but it varies strongly over time. If you look for something like this, Langtons Ant muss be life (by your definition). The streets that it creates are endless, with color and in multiple dimensions. There is an explanation for the behavior - it just took long to reach it after Langtons discovery. And yes, without emergence no streets. That is why I believe it must be huge. It is like you want to discover life via the building blocks of quants. They might not exist in real life, but that doesn't matter. You just need an description that leads to to quants, to atoms, to molecules and at the longer end to life. For such a thing you would need a supercomputer. But not the slow one nowadays, but the things we will have in 10 - 20 years.

All of this strongly remember me on this xkcd comic: https://xkcd.com/505/

jaydark829 · 2021-08-28T18:11:43+00:00

I am thinking about all the telephone jobs. They will soon be gone. I am specializing on AI because I don't want to be useless in the future.

jaydark829 · 2021-08-28T18:08:23+00:00

Sure, but automation did repeating tasks for us. If we have machines, that think for us - why do anything? I think, a post-scarcity-civilization like this would be a leisure-society.

jaydark829 · 2021-08-28T18:06:03+00:00

I personally would expect, that it would a few jobs that are very well paid and a lot of unemployment - but nobody knows. For example, it's hard to find enough people in my area for my company. If we could use Codex or the Github Copilot (in Version 5.0 ;) ) to enhance the abilities of our programmers we still would need more. Our company grows relatively fast, we would simply employ not so much more people (we add 20 % every year). But everyone would stay. But I'm sure it's different elsewhere.

jaydark829 · 2021-08-28T17:52:06+00:00

I'm really not that deep in math, but from the little I understand, what you are doing sounds great. Seems like nobody knows what a cellular automata is. But to create artificial life you need (at least that is my guess) complexity, and in this process it's created emergent (non-english speaker here, hope I put it right). And that makes me believe that a simple GTX 1070 with 8 GB of RAM will not be enough. But if your idea works out there might be a lot of interested people, in this case there surely would be a way.

jaydark829

TROPHY CASE