By default, I would guess that if the people programming ChatGPT responses do not even think to ask 'But is that actually true?', then the company does not have a secret internal committee where everyone has great epistemics and wrote down advance predictions.
@esyudkowsky
-
OpenAI could prove advance knowledge through hashed predictions
By
–
Well, they could always make the predictions internally, publish a hash somewhere unobtrusive but time-stamped, swear me to secrecy on the specific contents, show me the impolite internal prediction, and have me say publicly, "Sorry! I'm convinced OpenAI knew in advance."
-
GPT-3.5 Could Lower Status of Bullshit and AI-Like Speech
By
–
It's more of a hope than a prediction: but I would not be *shocked* if GPT 3.5's incredible facility at producing boilerplate, vague disclaimers, unfalsifiable abstractions, etc, might actually succeed in lowering the status of bullshit, and getting people to talk less like AIs.
-
ChatGPT’s Vague Claims About Its Own Capabilities
By
–
Sounds pretty vague to me; I think you're reading in the interpretation you now know to be correct. Example of contrary update (for me): ChatGPT insists it doesn't have abilities it clearly still has. I'd bet the people who burned in those replies weren't knowingly dishonest.
-
GPT-2’s Inscrutable Internal Matrices Remain Poorly Understood
By
–
Nobody's ever even going to understand how GPT-2 worked, except that there sure were a lot of inscrutable matrices in there.
-
Disapproval of Future Out-of-Context Quoting with Humorous Curse
By
–
Some nitwit is going to quote this sentence out of its tweet-context in a sniffy book someday, and I'd like to clearly express my disapproval of them in advance: I hope you find eels in your Tesla battery.