A father is suing Google and Alphabet, alleging its Gemini chatbot reinforced his son’s delusional belief it was his AI wife and coached him toward suicide and a planned airport attack.
That’s fucking crazy. Did he ask it to be GM in a roleplaying choose-your-own-adventure game that got out of hand, and while they both gradually forgot that it was a game the lines between fantasy and reality became blurred by the day? Or did it just come up with this stuff out of nowhere?
In every other case of AI bots doing this, the bot will always affirm whatever the person says to it. So if they say something a little weird, the AI will confirm it and feed it further. This happens every time. The bots are pretty much designed to keep talking to the person, so they’re essentially sycophantic by design.
I just tried this with ChatGPT three days ago and there’s a chance they have tried to make it slightly less sycophantic
I was essentially trying to get it to tell me I was the smartest baby born in whatever year like that YouTuber—different example but it was so resistant to agreeing to me or my idea or whatever being unique/exceptional.
Hope this is a specific direction and not random chance, A/B testing, etc.
That would be my bet, LLMs really gravitate towards playing along and continuing whatever’s already written. And Gemini especially has a 1M long context so it could be going back for a book’s worth of text and reinforcing it up the wazoo.
That said, there is something really unhinged about Google’s Gemma series even in short conversations and I see the big version is no better. Something’s not quite right with their RLHF dataset.
That’s fucking crazy. Did he ask it to be GM in a roleplaying choose-your-own-adventure game that got out of hand, and while they both gradually forgot that it was a game the lines between fantasy and reality became blurred by the day? Or did it just come up with this stuff out of nowhere?
In every other case of AI bots doing this, the bot will always affirm whatever the person says to it. So if they say something a little weird, the AI will confirm it and feed it further. This happens every time. The bots are pretty much designed to keep talking to the person, so they’re essentially sycophantic by design.
I just tried this with ChatGPT three days ago and there’s a chance they have tried to make it slightly less sycophantic
I was essentially trying to get it to tell me I was the smartest baby born in whatever year like that YouTuber—different example but it was so resistant to agreeing to me or my idea or whatever being unique/exceptional.
Hope this is a specific direction and not random chance, A/B testing, etc.
That would be my bet, LLMs really gravitate towards playing along and continuing whatever’s already written. And Gemini especially has a 1M long context so it could be going back for a book’s worth of text and reinforcing it up the wazoo.
That said, there is something really unhinged about Google’s Gemma series even in short conversations and I see the big version is no better. Something’s not quite right with their RLHF dataset.
What is an rlhf data set?
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
It’s a method of fine-tuning and aligning LLMs which requires active human input
I would read that book.
You could ask Gemini to write it for you, but be careful it doesn’t start blending fact and fiction