Mapping the Latent Spaces of Culture

As neural language models begin to change aspects of everyday life, they understandably attract criticism. This position paper was commissioned for a roundtable at Princeton University, dedicated to one of the most influential critiques: "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?" by Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Margaret Mitchell. My paper agrees that neural language models pose a variety of dangers, starting with and not limited to the list in "Stochastic Parrots." But to understand those dangers, I think we need to look beyond the premise that these models mimic "language understanding" on an individual level. That may have been what linguists and computer scientists intended them to do. But the models' actual potential (for both good and ill) is more interesting, and will be easier to grasp if we approach them as models of culture. Science-fictional scenarios about robots that become autonomous (or remain mere "parrots") are less useful here than humanistic cultural theory

Developing Datasheets for Archived Web Datasets

Emily Maemura: Developing Datasheets for Archived Web Datasets, Aarhus Conference 2022, Monday 17 Octobe

Stochastic Parrots Looking for Stochastic Parrots: LLMs are Easy to Fine-Tune and Hard to Detect with other LLMs

The self-attention revolution allowed generative language models to scale and achieve increasingly impressive abilities. Such models - commonly referred to as Large Language Models (LLMs) - have recently gained prominence with the general public, thanks to conversational fine-tuning, putting their behavior in line with public expectations regarding AI. This prominence amplified prior concerns regarding the misuse of LLMs and led to the emergence of numerous tools to detect LLMs in the wild. Unfortunately, most such tools are critically flawed. While major publications in the LLM detectability field suggested that LLMs were easy to detect with fine-tuned autoencoders, the limitations of their results are easy to overlook. Specifically, they assumed publicly available generative models without fine-tunes or non-trivial prompts. While the importance of these assumptions has been demonstrated, until now, it remained unclear how well such detection could be countered. Here, we show that an attacker with access to such detectors' reference human texts and output not only evades detection but can fully frustrate the detector training - with a reasonable budget and all its outputs labeled as such. Achieving it required combining common "reinforcement from critic" loss function modification and AdamW optimizer, which led to surprisingly good fine-tuning generalization. Finally, we warn against the temptation to transpose the conclusions obtained in RNN-driven text GANs to LLMs due to their better representative ability. These results have critical implications for the detection and prevention of malicious use of generative language models, and we hope they will aid the designers of generative models and detectors.Comment: 15 pages, 6 figures; 10 pages, 7 figures Supplementary Materials; under review at ECML 202

Abductive Reasoning with the GPT-4 Language Model: Case studies from criminal investigation, medical practice, scientific research

This study evaluates the GPT-4 Large Language Model's abductive reasoning in complex fields like medical diagnostics, criminology, and cosmology. Using an interactive interview format, the AI assistant demonstrated reliability in generating and selecting hypotheses. It inferred plausible medical diagnoses based on patient data and provided potential causes and explanations in criminology and cosmology. The results highlight the potential of LLMs in complex problem-solving and the need for further research to maximize their practical applications.Comment: The article is 12 pages long and has one figure. It also includes a link to some ChatGPT dialogues that show the experiments that support the article's findings. The article will be published in V. Bambini and C. Barattieri di San Pietro (eds.), Sistemi Intelligenti, Special Section "Multidisciplinary perspectives on ChatGPT and the family of Large Language Models

The Myth of Culturally Agnostic AI Models

The paper discusses the potential of large vision-language models as objects of interest for empirical cultural studies. Focusing on the comparative analysis of outputs from two popular text-to-image synthesis models, DALL-E 2 and Stable Diffusion, the paper tries to tackle the pros and cons of striving towards culturally agnostic vs. culturally specific AI models. The paper discusses several examples of memorization and bias in generated outputs which showcase the trade-off between risk mitigation and cultural specificity, as well as the overall impossibility of developing culturally agnostic models.Comment: Accepted for "Cultures in AI/AI in Culture" NeurIPS 2022 Worksho

Large Language Models Converge on Brain-Like Word Representations

One of the greatest puzzles of all time is how understanding arises from neural mechanics. Our brains are networks of billions of biological neurons transmitting chemical and electrical signals along their connections. Large language models are networks of millions or billions of digital neurons, implementing functions that read the output of other functions in complex networks. The failure to see how meaning would arise from such mechanics has led many cognitive scientists and philosophers to various forms of dualism -- and many artificial intelligence researchers to dismiss large language models as stochastic parrots or jpeg-like compressions of text corpora. We show that human-like representations arise in large language models. Specifically, the larger neural language models get, the more their representations are structurally similar to neural response measurements from brain imaging.Comment: Work in proces

ChatGPT Isn't Magic: The Hype and Hypocrisy of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Rhetoric

Author Arthur C. Clarke famously argued that in science fiction literature “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” (Clarke). On 30 November 2022, technology company OpenAI publicly released their Large Language Model (LLM)-based chatbot ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer), and instantly it was hailed as world-changing. Initial media stories about ChatGPT highlighted the speed with which it generated new material as evidence that this tool might be both genuinely creative and actually intelligent, in both exciting and disturbing ways. Indeed, ChatGPT is part of a larger pool of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools that can very quickly generate seemingly novel outputs in a variety of media formats based on text prompts written by users. Yet, claims that AI has become sentient, or has even reached a recognisable level of general intelligence, remain in the realm of science fiction, for now at least (Leaver). That has not stopped technology companies, scientists, and others from suggesting that super-smart AI is just around the corner. Exemplifying this, the same people creating generative AI are also vocal signatories of public letters that ostensibly call for a temporary halt in AI development, but these letters are simultaneously feeding the myth that these tools are so powerful that they are the early form of imminent super-intelligent machines. For many people, the combination of AI technologies and media hype means generative AIs are basically magical insomuch as their workings seem impenetrable, and their existence could ostensibly change the world. This article explores how the hype around ChatGPT and generative AI was deployed across the first six months of 2023, and how these technologies were positioned as either utopian or dystopian, always seemingly magical, but never banal. We look at some initial responses to generative AI, ranging from schools in Australia to picket lines in Hollywood. We offer a critique of the utopian/dystopian binary positioning of generative AI, aligning with critics who rightly argue that focussing on these extremes displaces the more grounded and immediate challenges generative AI bring that need urgent answers. Finally, we loop back to the role of schools and educators in repositioning generative AI as something to be tested, examined, scrutinised, and played with both to ground understandings of generative AI, while also preparing today’s students for a future where these tools will be part of their work and cultural landscapes

Amplifying Limitations, Harms and Risks of Large Language Models

We present this article as a small gesture in an attempt to counter what appears to be exponentially growing hype around Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its capabilities, and the distraction provided by the associated talk of science-fiction scenarios that might arise if AI should become sentient and super-intelligent. It may also help those outside of the field to become more informed about some of the limitations of AI technology. In the current context of popular discourse AI defaults to mean foundation and large language models (LLMs) such as those used to create ChatGPT. This in itself is a misrepresentation of the diversity, depth and volume of research, researchers, and technology that truly represents the field of AI. AI being a field of research that has existed in software artefacts since at least the 1950's. We set out to highlight a number of limitations of LLMs, and in so doing highlight that harms have already arisen and will continue to arise due to these limitations. Along the way we also highlight some of the associated risks for individuals and organisations in using this technology