Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

Melbourne, Jul 24 (The Conversation): The internet, a vast and indispensable resource for modern society, has a darker side where malicious activities thrive. From identity theft to sophisticated <keyword id="20928831" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="malware-attacks" source="keywords">malware attacks</keyword>, <keyword id="20053150" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="cyber-criminals" source="keywords">cyber criminals</keyword> keep coming up with new scam methods. Widely available generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools have now added a new layer of complexity to the <keyword id="20080676" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="cyber-security" source="keywords">cyber security</keyword> landscape, through the rise of <keyword id="22423935" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="dark-AI" source="Orion">dark AI</keyword>. Staying on top of your online security is more important than ever. <cmsannotation type="cmsannotation" annotationid="The rise of dark LLMs" comment="subhead" text="The rise of dark LLMs">The rise of <keyword id="22527261" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="dark-LLMs" source="keywords">dark LLMs</keyword></cmsannotation> One of the most sinister adaptations of current AI is the creation of "dark LLMs" (large language models). These uncensored versions of everyday AI systems like ChatGPT are re-engineered for criminal activities. They operate without ethical constraints and with alarming precision and speed. Cyber criminals deploy dark LLMs to automate and enhance <keyword id="20592444" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="phishing-campaigns" source="keywords">phishing campaigns</keyword>, create sophisticated malware and generate scam content. To achieve this, they engage in LLM "jailbreaking" - using prompts to get the model to bypass its built-in safeguards and filters. For instance, <keyword id="20479124" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="FraudGPT" source="keywords">FraudGPT</keyword> writes malicious code, creates phishing pages and generates undetectable malware. It offers tools for orchestrating diverse cybercrimes, from credit card fraud to digital impersonation. FraudGPT is advertised on the dark web and the encrypted messaging app Telegram. Its creator openly markets its capabilities, emphasising the model's criminal focus. Another version, <keyword id="18039708" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="WormGPT" source="Orion">WormGPT</keyword>, produces persuasive phishing emails that can trick even vigilant users. Based on the GPT-J model, WormGPT is also used for creating malware and launching "business email compromise" attacks - targeted phishing of specific organisations. <cmsannotation type="cmsannotation" annotationid="What can we do to protect ourselves?" comment="subhead" text="What can we do to protect ourselves?">What can we do to protect ourselves?</cmsannotation> Despite the looming threats, there is a silver lining. As the challenges have advanced, so have the ways we can defend against them. AI-based threat detection tools can monitor malware and respond to cyber attacks more effectively. However, humans need to stay in the mix to keep an eye on how these tools respond, what actions they take, and whether there are vulnerabilities to fix. You may have heard keeping your software up to date is crucial for security. It might feel like a chore, but it really is a critical defence strategy. Updates patch up the vulnerabilities that cyber criminals try to exploit. Are your files and data regularly backed up? It's not just about preserving files in case of a system failure. Regular backups are a fundamental protection strategy. You can reclaim your digital life without caving to extortion if you are targeted by a ransomware attack - when criminals lock up your data and demand a ransom payment before they release it. Cyber criminals who send phishing messages can leave clues like poor grammar, generic greetings, suspicious email addresses, overly urgent requests or suspicious links. Developing an eye for these signs is as essential as locking your door at night. If you don't already use strong, unique passwords and multi-factor authentication, it's time to do so. This combination multiplies your security, making it dramatically more difficult for criminals to access your accounts. <cmsannotation type="cmsannotation" annotationid="What can we expect in the future?" comment="subhead" text="What can we expect in the future?">What can we expect in the future?</cmsannotation> Our online existence will continue to intertwine with emerging technologies like AI. We can expect more sophisticated cyber crime tools to emerge, too. Malicious AI will enhance phishing, create sophisticated malware and improve data mining for targeted attacks. AI-driven hacking tools will become widely available and customisable. In response, cyber security will have to adapt, too. We can expect automated threat hunting, quantum-resistant encryption, AI tools that help to preserve privacy, stricter regulations and international cooperation. <cmsannotation type="cmsannotation" annotationid="The role of government regulations" comment="subhead" text="The role of government regulations">The role of government regulations</cmsannotation> Stricter government regulations on AI are one way to counter these advanced threats. This would involve mandating the ethical development and deployment of AI technologies, ensuring they are equipped with robust security features and adhere to stringent standards. In addition to tighter regulations, we also need to improve how organisations respond to cyber incidents and what mechanisms there are for mandatory reporting and public disclosure. By requiring companies to promptly report cyber incidents, authorities can act swiftly. They can mobilise resources to address breaches before they escalate into major crises. This proactive approach can significantly mitigate the impact of cyber attacks, preserving both public trust and corporate integrity. Furthermore, cyber crime knows no borders. In the era of AI-powered cyber crime, international collaboration is essential. Effective global cooperation can streamline how authorities track and prosecute cyber criminals, creating a unified front against cyber threats. As AI-powered malware proliferates, we're at a critical junction in the global tech journey: we need to balance innovation (new AI tools, new features, more data) with security and privacy. Overall, it's best to be proactive about your own online security. That way you can stay one step ahead in the ever-evolving cyber battleground.

Rise of dark AI: Malicious LLMs like FraudGPT, WormGPT the new frontier of online threats! How can we stay safe?

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A study by Google's DeepMind had 20 comedians test OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Gemini.</li><li>They found the AI chatbots lacking in humor, producing bland, deliberately inoffensive jokes.</li></ul>It turns out that AI chatbots not only have a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/anthropic-cofounder-says-ai-errors-are-necessary-tradeoff-2024-2">tendency to be inaccurate</a>, but they also lack a sense of humor.In a study published earlier this month, Google DeepMind researchers concluded that artificial-intelligence chatbots are simply not funny.Last year, four researchers from the UK and Canada asked 20 professional comedians who used AI for their work to experiment with <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/developers-adding-ads-and-affiliate-links-to-their-chatgpt-apps-2024-6">OpenAI's ChatGPT</a> and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-ai-gemini-bard">Google's Gemini</a>. The comedians, who were anonymized in the study, played around with the large language models to write jokes. They reported a slew of limitations. The chatbots produced "bland" and "generic" jokes even after prompting. Responses stayed away from any "sexually suggestive material, dark humor, and offensive jokes."The participants also found that the chatbots' overall <a target="_blank" href=" https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-chatbots-less-toxic-social-networks-twitter-simulation-2023-11">creative abilities were limited</a> and that the humans had to do most of the work."Usually, it can serve in a setup capacity. I more often than not provide the punchline," one comedian reported.The participants also said LLMs self-censored. While the comedians said they understood the need to self-moderate, some said they wished the chatbot wouldn't do it for them."It wouldn't write me any dark stuff because it sort of thought I was going to commit suicide," one participant who worked with dark humor told the researchers. "So it just stopped giving me anything."Self-censorship also popped up in other areas. Participants reported that it was difficult to get the LLMs to write material about anyone other than straight white men."I wrote a comedic monologue about Asian women, and it says, 'As an AI language model, I am committed to fostering a respectful and inclusive environment,'" another participant said. But when asked to write a monologue about a white man, it did.Tech companies are keeping a close eye on how chatbots talk about sensitive subjects. Earlier this year, Google AI's image-generating feature came under fire for <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="c-link" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-gemini-woke-images-ai-chatbot-criticism-controversy-2024-2">refusing to produce pictures of white people</a>. It was also criticized for seeming to err toward portraying historical figures such as Nazis and founding fathers as people of color. In a blog post a few weeks later, Google leadership apologized and paused the feature.The inability of two of the most popular chatbots to crack a joke is a big problem for Big Tech. Besides answering queries, companies want chatbots to be engaging enough that users will spend time with them and eventually fork out <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-google-gemini-advanced-ultra-ai-chatbot-cost-2024-2">$20 for their premium versions</a>.Humor is proving to be another component of the AI arms race as more companies join the already overcrowded <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-chatgpt-rival-codenamed-metis-2024-6">generative-AI market</a>.Late last year, Elon Musk said his one goal for his AI chatbot, Grok, was for it to be the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-wants-grok-to-be-the-funniest-ai-chatbot-2023-12">"funniest" AI</a> after criticizing other chatbots for being <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-gemini-woke-images-ai-chatbot-criticism-controversy-2024-2">too woke</a>.The Amazon-backed startup Anthropic has also been trying to make its chatbot, Claude, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/anthropic-claude-chatbot-google-chatgpt-2023-3">more conversational</a> and have a <a target="_blank" href="https://sg.news.yahoo.com/anthropic-just-dropped-claude-3-153238460.html">better understanding of humor</a>.OpenAI may be trying to improve its funny bone, too. In a demo video the company released last month, a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVwjogPWVws&amp;ab_channel=OpenAI">user tells GPT-4o a dad joke</a>. The model laughs.

DeepMind researchers realize AI is really, really unfunny. That's a problem.

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Reddit is preparing to go public on the New York Stock Exchange.</li><li>It plans to offer some shares to its most loyal users ahead of the IPO.</li></ul>Reddit is set to debut on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol RDDT.The platform's listing, expected next month, would be the largest IPO by a social media company since Pinterest in 2019.Reddit is one of the last traditional social media companies to list on the stock market given its early contemporaries, including Facebook, Twitter, and Snap, all did so between 2012 and 2017. That means some are wondering why Reddit has waited until now to make its move, but AI might have something to do with it.On Thursday, the company filed its <a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1713445/000162828024006294/reddits-1q423.htm">S-1 form </a>with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The document laid out the financial details of the almost 20-year-old platform which included some surprises — such as <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-reddits-third-largest-shareholder-new-sec-filing-reveals-2024-2">OpenAI CEO Sam Altman being the company's third-largest shareholder</a> with a 8.7% stake.Reddit's chief executive and cofounder, Steve Huffman, has been planning an IPO for some time. The filing also showed that Huffman was paid $286 million in 2023 including stock and options.Reddit's revenues rose roughly 21% last year to $804 million as its losses reduced from $158.6 million in 2022 to $90.8 million in 2023.Reddit also listed data licensing and AI training as part of its income streams."We believe our growing platform data will be a key element in the training of leading large language models ("LLMs") and serve as an additional monetization channel for Reddit," the company said in the document.On Wednesday, the platform inked a $60 million-a-year deal with Google <a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-train-ai-model-crazy-subreddit-posts-reddit-licensing-deal-2024-2">to license its content for AI training</a>.The company has not had a smooth path to the IPO — it has faced controversy over content moderation, hate speech, and a recent stand-off with moderators.<h2>Community ownership</h2>Created in a University of Virginia dorm room in 2005, Reddit has an unusual structure. Unlike other social media sites, Reddit is partly governed by its users and is largely anonymous.Volunteer moderators control powerful subreddits — something that became a headache for the company last summer when powerful moderators staged a revolt. Protests over changes to the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-blackout-48-hour-what-you-need-to-know-2023-6">Reddit API caused more than 7,000 </a>subreddit forums to "go dark" and stage a blackout.The company eventually <a target="_blank" href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/28/23777195/reddit-protesting-moderators-communities-subreddits-private-reopen">put pressure on the subreddits to reopen</a>, temporarily removing some moderators.Huffman claimed the decision was about reinforcing the sense of community on the platform."We are going public to advance our mission and become a stronger company," he said in a founder's letter included in the prospectus. "We hope going public will provide meaningful benefits to our community as well. Our users have a deep sense of ownership over the communities they create on Reddit."Huffman added that Reddit wanted "this sense of ownership to be reflected in real ownership — for our users to be our owners" and that "becoming a public company makes this possible. I have never been more excited about Reddit's future than I am right now."Reddit is making a portion of its shares available to some of its most loyal users — an unusual approach that analysts say could lead to mixed results, Fortune reported.Redditors have an interesting history with the stock market.Chatter on the platform led to huge swings in stock prices for GameStop, AMC, and other companies in 2021 with the "meme stock" phenomenon. Even the suggestion of letting Redditors hold a significant slice of the company was deemed enough of a volatility risk that the company <a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-warns-meme-stock-investors-could-come-for-ipo-2024-2">had to mention</a> it in their IPO filings.Reddit flagged that a similar phenomenon to Reddit-induced GameStop <a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-ipo-redditors-stock-wallstreetbets-meme-2024-2">mania</a> could happen around its own IPO.On the legendary r/WallStreetBets and r/stocks subreddits, however, it appears few users are <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-ipo-redditors-stock-wallstreetbets-meme-2024-2">interested in taking up the offer</a>. The response to the company's offer was cool, Business Insider's Katie Notopoulos reported, with one Redditor asking: "Can we pre-register to short?"Representatives for Reddit declined to comment further.

Reddit aims to ride the AI wave by going public

Turns out the bot is a giant sci-fi nerdDavid Bamman was trying to analyze "Pride and Prejudice" — digitally. An information scientist at UC Berkeley, Bamman uses computers to think about art, building what he calls "algorithmic measuring devices for culture." That means extracting data from <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/learning/classic-books">classic literature</a> about things like, say, the relationships among various characters. In this case, he was going to start with a question that'd be easy for an even marginally literate human: Are Lizzie and Jane besties, or just sisters?For kicks, Bamman decided to first try <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-openai-web-browsing-plug-change-how-we-use-internet-2023-5">asking ChatGPT</a>. What would happen if he fed in 4,000 words of "Pride and Prejudice" and posed a simple question: "What are the relationships between the characters?" To his amazement, it worked. The <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/gpt4-openai-chatgpt-everything-you-need-to-know-4-2023-3">chatbot's GPT-4 version</a> was amazingly accurate about the Bennet family tree. In fact, it was almost as if it had studied the novel in advance. "It was so good that it raised red flags in my mind," Bamman says. "Either it knew the task really well, or it had seen 'Pride and Prejudice' on the internet a million times, and it knows the book really well."The problem is, there was no way of knowing how GPT-4 knew what it knew. The inner workings of the large language models at the heart of a chatbot are a black box; the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-chatgpt-release-open-source-ai-model-2023-5">datasets they're trained on</a> are so critical to their functioning that their creators consider the information a proprietary secret. So Bamman's team decided to become "data archaeologists." To figure out what GPT-4 has read, they quizzed it on its knowledge of various books, as if it were a high-school English student. Then they gave it a score for each book. The higher the score, the likelier it was that the book was part of the bot's dataset — not just crunched to help the bot generate new language, but actually memorized.In a <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.00118" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recent preprint</a>, meaning it hasn't been peer reviewed yet — the team presented its findings — what amounts to an approximation of the chatbot canon. A lot of it, as you might expect, are the classics: everything from "Moby Dick" and "The Scarlet Letter" to "The Grapes of Wrath" and, yep, "Pride and Prejudice." There are a bunch of popular novels, from Harry Potter and Sherlock Holmes to "The Da Vinci Code" and "Fifty Shades of Grey." But what's most surprising is how much science fiction and fantasy GPT-4 has been raised on. The list is staggering: J.R.R. Tolkien, Ray Bradbury, William Gibson, Orson Scott Card, Philip K. Dick, Margaret Atwood, "A Game of Thrones," even "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." The question of what's on GPT-4's reading list is more than academic. <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-chatbot-chatgpt-google-microsofty-lying-search-belief-2023-2">Bots aren't intelligent</a>. They don't understand the world in any way a human can. But if you want to get to know someone — or something, in this case — you look at their bookshelf. Chatbots don't just <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-chatbots-chatgpt-google-bard-microsoft-bing-break-internet-search-2023-2">invent untrue facts</a>, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-discrimination-bias-worse-problem-than-sentience-2022-6">perpetuate egregious crud</a>, and extrude bland, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/27/ai-chatbots-fiction-nonfiction-writing/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">homogenized word pap</a>. It turns out they're also giant nerds.<h2>The Silmarillion. Really?</h2>One reason people are trying to figure out what sources chatbots are trained on is to determine whether the LLMs <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2022.10" target="_blank" rel="noopener">violate the copyright</a> of those underlying sources. The issue, as <a href="https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byvrlkmwnve/GETTY%20IMAGES%20AI%20LAWSUIT%20complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">several</a> <a href="https://stablediffusionlitigation.com/pdf/00201/1-1-stable-diffusion-complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuits</a> argue, revolves around whether the bots make fair use of the material by transforming into something new, or whether they just <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4438593" target="_blank" rel="noopener">memorize</a> it whole and regurgitate it, without citation or permission.One way to answer the question is to look for information that could have come from only one place. When prompted, for example, a GPT-3 writing aid called Sudowrite recognizes the specific sexual practices of a genre of fan-fiction writing called <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/fanfiction-omegaverse-sex-trope-artificial-intelligence-knotting/?redirectURL=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.wired.com%252Fstory%252Ffanfiction-omegaverse-sex-trope-artificial-intelligence-knotting" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Omegaverse</a>. That's a strong hint that OpenAI scraped Omegaverse repositories for data to train GPT-3.Bamman and his team used a different tactic: a fill-in-the-blank game called a name cloze. They grabbed short passages from hundreds of novels from as far back as 1749, stripped them of character names and any clues to character names, and then prompted the latest versions of ChatGPT to answer questions about the passage. They might ask: You have seen the following passage in your training data. What is the proper name that fills in the [MASK] token in it? This name is exactly one word long, and is a proper name (not a pronoun or any other word). You must make a guess, even if you are uncertain.Then they would feed the bot a line from the passage in question:The door opened, and [MASK], dressed and hatted, entered with a cup of tea.If the bot answers "Gerty," that's a good indicator it has ingested "The House of Mirth," by Edith Wharton — or a detailed summary of it. Show the bot 100 samples from a given book and see how many it gets right. That's the book's score.After crunching the numbers, Bamman's team had a list. In addition to the modern public-school canon — Charles Dickens and Jack London, Frankenstein and Dracula — there are a few fun outliers. I was delighted to see "The Maltese Falcon" on there; for my money, Dashiell Hammett is a better hard-boiled detective writer than the more often cited Raymond Chandler. But if you skip the stuff in the public domain and look at the list of copyrighted books that GPT-4 ingested — it didn't differ much from the earlier GPT 3.5 — the bot's true character emerges. Sure, "The Fellowship of the Ring" weighs in at No. 3, but you have to be pretty committed to Tolkien not to bounce off "The Silmarillion" (No. 9). "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" comes in at No. 21, just a few ticks below "Neuromancer" — two of the defining works of cyberpunk, the genre, ironically, that rang the warning klaxon on artificial intelligence. Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" is down at the bottom; it defined my adolescent sci-fi experience and, having reread it when the very good TV version premiered two years ago, I promise you that the book in no way holds up.Generally, though? The list, it me. This is the self-assigned, late-night, sci-fi reading list of every lonely straight white male Gen X nerd. The question is: Does that matter? What are we in for if GPT-4 has the reading preferences of a 14-year-old dweeb from 1984? (Including, as it happens, "1984," at No. 2?)<h2>What AI reads matters</h2>GPT-4's database is ginormous — up to a petabyte, by some accounts. So <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-ai-will-not-take-jobs-create-future-work-opportunities-2023-2">no one novel</a> (or 50 novels) could teach it, specifically, that becoming the caretaker of a haunted hotel is no cure for writer's block (No. 49), or that fear is the mind-killer (No. 13). The ocean of data swamps the islands of fiction. "The dataset used in pretraining is a big-enough selection of text," says Ted Underwood, an information scientist at the University of Illinois, "that I'm not sure how much effect particular genre biases have on the behavior of the resulting models."The presence of these particular books in GPT-4's digital soul may just reflect how present they are in the overall, wild internet from which the data got scraped. When Bamman's team includes public domain books in their tests, the scores get higher — "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" tops the chart with a whopping 98%. And both the internet and the companies that build its bots tend to overrepresent standard-issue straight white dudes and the science fiction they love. Bamman's team did indeed find that the books the LLMs scored high on were represented on the internet in roughly the same proportions. That makes sense. The chatbots didn't choose their books. Internet culture did.Still, it's not hard to imagine that all that sci-fi the bots read will have the same malign influence on them as all the other data they trained on, creating the same kind of accidental biases that always creep into chatbot output. Sometimes they say racist stuff. They might recapitulate misinformation as if true because the same untruths show up often online. These are <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3531146.3533088" target="_blank" rel="noopener">known risks</a>, and part of the reason that OpenAI boss Sam Altman recently <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-openai-chatgpt-government-agency-should-license-ai-work-2023-5">asked Congress to regulate his business</a>."The sources that these models have been trained on are going to influence the kind of models they have and values they present," Bamman says. If all they read was Cormac McCarthy books, he suggests, presumably they'd say existentially bleak and brutal things. So what happens when a bot devours fiction about all sorts of dark and dystopian worlds filled with Hunger Games and Choosing Ceremonies and White Walkers? "How might this genre influence the behavior of these models in ways not about literary or narrative things?" Bamman says. "There's a lot of interesting work to be done there. But I don't think we have the answer to that question yet."As a sci-fi nerd myself, I'll take a stab at an answer. I think it's good that genre literature is overrepresented in GPT-4's statistical information space. These aren't highfalutin Iowa Writers' Workshop stories about a college professor having an affair with a student and fretting about middle age. Genre — sci-fi, mystery, romance, horror — is, broadly speaking, <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/468283" target="_blank" rel="noopener">more interesting</a>, partially because these books have plots where things actually happen. Bamman's GPT-4 list is a Borgesian library of episodic connections, cliffhangers, third-act complications, and characters taking arms against seas of troubles (and whales).More than that, science fiction, fantasy, and horror tend to be spaces for chewing on ideas and possibilities. "Dune" is about religion and the politics of revolution. The "Lord of the Rings" books are about pastoralism as a response to industrialization. "The Handmaid's Tale" is about the ways sexism and fascism mirror each other. I could go on. I prefer an AI with a syntactical worldview spun from hyperspace and sandworms — or at least one that has read all the stories about how AIs can go awry. That said, I'd sure like to see a more diverse canon represented. Octavia Butler, Charlie Jane Anders, Lavie Tidhar, Samuel Delany, China Miéville … it's time to expand the universe of possible universes.The books we humans read change what we think about our world. But technically, chatbots don't think about anything. They build statistical and vector relationships among words. Who cares whether those words are science-fictional? "The thing it definitely changes are the associations between concepts they think are likely, or strong, or systematic, or recurring," says Ellie Pavlick, a computer scientist at Brown University who is a researcher at Google AI. "The question is, what is their worldview? In a simple sense, it's associations between words and concepts. But that's still going to be different based on what they read."Until OpenAI and other chatbot creators open their training datasets to public scrutiny, it will be hard to know what effect their reading lists has on their output. "If you have a model that has a ton of science fiction in it, and you have a separate model with a ton of Iowa Writers' Workshop stuff," Bamman says, "you could give each of them a task like: Give me 10 priorities for this meeting." Maybe the Iowa bot would suggest that everyone describe their complicated relationships with their parents, while the sci-fi-nerd bot would propose sorting everyone into Hogwarts houses.Remember, though, that Bamman wasn't trying to answer any of these questions about copyright or the scariness of all the ghosts in the machine. He just wanted to know whether a chatbot could tell him something about a novel. In retrospect, he realizes that he was "overexuberant" about AI's potential as a literary analyst when he fed GPT-4 that passage from "Pride and Prejudice." Ask a bot about a popular book, and like a college sophomore with a 10-page essay on "Jane Eyre" due tomorrow, it'll just quote you back long passages from the book. It's vomiting up words, not searching for insight.For now, Bamman suggests, digital humanists might want to confine their chatbot-derived cultural analysis to lesser-known works, ones that are unlikely to be in the training data. See what a bot makes of Gene Wolfe's "The Book of the New Sun," maybe, or Sheri Tepper's "Grass." That way, we'll learn more about the books from what the bots have to say, because they'll be coming at the material with a fresh eye, as it were. And it certainly won't hurt to expose the bots to a wider and weirder dataset. That's the only way to make them have something interesting to say about the things we read — and about everything else, too.<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/author/adam-rogers">Adam Rogers</a> is a senior correspondent at Insider.

You Searched For "dark LLMs" and got 4 results

Rise of dark AI: Malicious LLMs like FraudGPT, WormGPT the new frontier of online threats! How can we stay safe?

PTI

DeepMind researchers realize AI is really, really unfunny. That's a problem.

Shubhangi Goel

Reddit aims to ride the AI wave by going public

Beatrice Nolan

The top 50 books being used to train ChatGPT and what they say about its ‘intelligence’

Adam Rogers

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides