Seems to claim the post talks about things it doesn’t (“as language models become more prevalent in society” narrative(??)), while also leaving out important nuance about what that the post does talk about.
Upvoted for trying stuff, disagreement voted because the summary just ain’t very good.
New summary that’s ‘less wrong’ (but still experimental)
I’ve been working on improving the summarizer script. Here’s the summary auto-generated by the latest version, using better prompts and fixing some bugs:
The author investigates a phenomenon in GPT language models where the prompt “petertodd” generates bizarre and disturbing outputs, varying across different models. The text documents experiments with GPT-3, including hallucinations, transpositions, and word associations. Interestingly, “petertodd” is associated with character names from the Japanese RPG game, Puzzle & Dragons, and triggers themes such as entropy, destruction, domination, and power-seeking in generated content.
The text explores the origins of “glitch tokens” like “petertodd”, which can result in unpredictable and often surreal outputs. This phenomenon is studied using various AI models, with the “petertodd” prompt producing outputs ranging from deity-like portrayals to embodiments of ego death and even world domination plans. It also delves into the connections between “petertodd” and other tokens, such as “Leilan”, which is consistently associated with a Great Mother Goddess figure.
The article includes examples of AI-generated haikus, folktales, and character associations from different cultural contexts, highlighting the unpredictability and complexity of GPT-3′s associations and outputs. The author also discusses the accidental discovery of the “Leilan” token and its negligent inclusion in the text corpus used to generate it.
In summary, the text provides a thorough exploration of the “petertodd” phenomenon, analyzing its implications and offering various examples of AI-generated content. Future posts aim to further analyze this phenomenon and its impact on AI language models.
I think it’s a superior summary, no longer hallucinating narratives about language models in society and going more in detail on interesting parts of the post. It was unable to preserve ′ petertodd’ and ′ Leilan’ with single quotes and leading spaces from the OP though. Also I feel like it is clumsy how the summary brings up “Leilan” twice.
Send a reply if anyone sees additional problems with this new summary, or has other feedback on it.
Seems to claim the post talks about things it doesn’t (“as language models become more prevalent in society” narrative(??)), while also leaving out important nuance about what that the post does talk about.
Upvoted for trying stuff, disagreement voted because the summary just ain’t very good.
New summary that’s ‘less wrong’ (but still experimental)
I’ve been working on improving the summarizer script. Here’s the summary auto-generated by the latest version, using better prompts and fixing some bugs:
I think it’s a superior summary, no longer hallucinating narratives about language models in society and going more in detail on interesting parts of the post. It was unable to preserve ′ petertodd’ and ′ Leilan’ with single quotes and leading spaces from the OP though. Also I feel like it is clumsy how the summary brings up “Leilan” twice.
Send a reply if anyone sees additional problems with this new summary, or has other feedback on it.
Great feedback, thanks! Looks like GPT-4 ran away with its imagination a bit. I’ll try to fix that.