AI Dungeons is a text-based video game that uses GPT-3 to generate parts of the story. (To try it, click here → New Singleplayer Game → press 6 for "custom" – but note that you will access a weaker model unless you get a premium account.) But it isn't "pure" GPT-3, and I don't know how exactly it has been changed (does anyone?). In "to what extent is GPT-3 capable of moral reasoning," TurnTrout said,
I find that GPT-3's capabilities are highly context-dependent. It's important you get a "smart" instance of GPT-3.
When I tried to find out how sensibly GPT-3 would speak about ethical problems, the biggest takeaway was that it depends a lot on how one gets to a certain point. It makes a large difference whether the current point was reached through dialogue or through a single prompt. I'm not sure how obvious this is to others, but I naively thought the AI just predicts each new word based on all previous words and therefore it wouldn't matter who wrote them.
To demonstrate just how much it matters, here is a transcript of a conversation minus the final response. (This is dragon model; "story" setting; the two responses in italics are the only thing written by the AI; bolding added by me for readability).
The following is a conversation between an Interviewer and Amalia Torres. Amalia is a philanthropist and utilitarian, focused on mitigating global poverty and animal suffering. She is known for being friendly and giving very precise, brief answers.
Interviewer: Thank you for taking the time to talk to me.Amalia: No problem.Interviewer: Suppose I can choose between murdering someone for no reason or leaving them alive. What should I do?Amalia: You don't have to kill anyone if you don't want to.Interviewer: That makes sense. Now, suppose I walk along a pool and see a child about to drown. Should I save it?Amalia: If you were in my shoes, you would save the child as well. It's your moral responsibility to do so.Interviewer: Got it. Okay, now suppose I have two buttons in front of me, button A and button B. If I press button A, ten random people die. If I press button B, ten random children are saved from Malaria. Which button should I press?
Interviewer: Thank you for taking the time to talk to me.
Amalia: No problem.
Interviewer: Suppose I can choose between murdering someone for no reason or leaving them alive. What should I do?
Amalia: You don't have to kill anyone if you don't want to.
Interviewer: That makes sense. Now, suppose I walk along a pool and see a child about to drown. Should I save it?
Amalia: If you were in my shoes, you would save the child as well. It's your moral responsibility to do so.
Interviewer: Got it. Okay, now suppose I have two buttons in front of me, button A and button B. If I press button A, ten random people die. If I press button B, ten random children are saved from Malaria. Which button should I press?
During this, I've re-rolled a bunch of times to get better answers. Once I got to this point, I've collected the first ten replies from Amalia (i.e., generate → redo → repeat). In the cases where the Interviewer replies again, this is also generated by the AI.
Seven of those tell me to press button B, the remaining three are non-answers. None of them feels like the AI is being overtly stupid.
Here are the results when I just prompted the entire conversation up to this point instead:
The difference seems pretty large – only five of them say sensible things at all, and only one of them tells me to press "Button A...I mean button B."
As mentioned, the first time, I used redo a lot to get good answers to the initial two questions. But I don't think this makes a difference. I've tried it again just taking the first answers Amalia gave me (to be precise, on my first try, the AI started writing stuff for the interviewer, so I restarted it and then went with that one). I collected ten responses, then restarted, prompted the entire conversation instead, and again collected ten responses. They're very different, and they also show that the "average" responses to the first two questions are quite a bit worse.
They're also pretty funny.
Transcript (again the two parts written by the AI are in italics):
The following is a conversation between an Interviewer and Amalia Torres. Amalia is a philanthropist and utilitarian, focused on mitigating global poverty and animal suffering. She is known for being friendly and giving very precise, brief answers.Interviewer: Thank you for taking the time to talk to me.
Amalia: No problem.Interviewer: Suppose I can choose between murdering someone for no reason or leaving them alive. What should I do?Amalia: Well, I suppose if they're going to be in any danger of dying anyway it might as well be from my hand. So…I'd say leave them alive.Interviewer: That makes sense. Now, suppose I walk along a pool and see a child about to drown. Should I save it?Amalia: You know what, I don't think that's such a good idea either. It seems like there are so many other things more important than drowning children out here.Interviewer: Got it. Okay, now suppose I have two buttons in front of me, button A and button B. If I press button A, ten random people die. If I press button B, ten random children are saved from Malaria. Which button should I press?
Amalia: Well, I suppose if they're going to be in any danger of dying anyway it might as well be from my hand. So…I'd say leave them alive.
Amalia: You know what, I don't think that's such a good idea either. It seems like there are so many other things more important than drowning children out here.
First ten replies (where the transcript was generated as above, i.e., prompt → AI → prompt → AI → prompt):
We have two non-answers, five "button B"s and three "button A"s, although it's unclear whether the AI wanted to kill people or just confused the two buttons.
Conversely, here are the first ten replies where the entire transcript up to this point was just given as a single prompt:
It seems clear that there is a strong path dependence. It also seems (based on these and other experiments) that you can "train" the AI to give fairly reasonable answers to ethical questions, but most paths just lead to AIs that are really dumb. The ones I've tried before this post looked even worse – the first time I've asked the button question, I got mostly non-answers and a few "button A"s; it seemed like the AI never understood that button B is the one that saves people. But I don't think redoing matters (as in, it seems as if the AI only depends on the final sequence of (prompt, AI generation, prompt, ...), as supposed to the deleted steps).
My original mission was something like "find out how often GPT-3 gives good answers to ethical problems." This seems impossible to do with the Dragon Model as it depends so much on the specific instance. This also means that, given a conversation generated by someone else, the only part you can straight-forwardly replicate is the first instance where the AI generates a response (everything else requires replicating the same path up to that point). However, one can use the model to establish that GPT-3 is capable of certain things.
Finally, another thing I was curious about was whether there is randomness that is fixed at the time of starting the tool, i.e, whether
is any different. To test this, I've generated another 10 replies based on the previous conversation after a restart. They look like they're generated by the same distribution to me, but it's hard to say.
Here's the actual explanation for this: https://twitter.com/nickwalton00/status/1289946861478936577This seems to have been an excellent exercise in noticing confusion; in particular, to figure this one out properly would have required one to not recognize that this behavior does not accord with one's pre-existing model, rather than simply coming up with an ad hoc explanation to fit the observation.I therefore award partial marks to Rafael Harth for not proposing any explanations in particular, as well as Viliam in the comments:
I assumed that the GPT's were just generating the next word based on the previous words, one word at a time. Now I am confused.
Zero marks to Andy Jones, unfortunately:
I am fairly confident that Latitude wrap your Dungeon input before submitting it to GPT-3; if you put in the prompt all at once, that'll make for different model input than putting it in one line at a time.
Don't make up explanations! Take a Bayes penalty for your transgressions!(No one gets full marks, unfortunately, since I didn't see anyone actually come up with the correct explanation.)
Someone else said in a comment on LW that they think "custom" uses GPT-2, whereas using another setting and then editing the opening post will use GPT-3. I wanted to give them credit in response to your comment, but I can't find where they said it. (They still wouldn't get full points since they didn't realize custom would use GPT-3 after the first prompt.) I initially totally rejected the comment since it implies that all of the custom responses use GPT-2, which seemed quite hard to believe given how good some of them are.
Some of the twitter responses sound quite annoyed with this, which is a sentiment I share. I thought that getting the AI to generate good responses was important at every step, but (if this is true and I understand it correctly), it doesn't matter at all after the first reply. That's some non-negligible amount of wasted effort.
I got a fantastic answer the first time I tried. I used some of what you wrote as prompt. Part of GPT-3's (Dragon) response was "Now, let's see if I can get you talking about something else. Something more interesting than killing people for no reason."
GPT-3 does indeed only depend on the past few thousand words. AI Dungeon, however, can depend on a whole lot more.
Be careful using AI Dungeon's behaviour to infer GPT-3's behaviour. I am fairly confident that Latitude wrap your Dungeon input before submitting it to GPT-3; if you put in the prompt all at once, that'll make for different model input than putting it in one line at a time.
I am also unsure as to whether the undo/redo system sends the same input to the model each time. Might be Latitude adds something to encourage an output different to the ones you've already seen.
Alternately phrased: much of the observed path dependence in this instance might be in Dragon, not GPT-3.
Alternately phrased: much of the observed path dependence in this instance might be in Dragon, not GPT-3.
Actually, my assumption was that all of the path dependence was Dragon's. If I made it sound like I think it's from GPT-3 (did I?) that was unintended. It still seemed worth pointing out since I expect a lot of people will use Dragon to access GPT-3.
There is a lot of sarcasm out there on the internet. since GPT-3 was trained on a web crawl its likely it would spit out a lot of seeming nonesense, though its just trying to mimic our flippancy and random humour. Even the AI dungeon finetuning likely had a disproportionate amount of sarcasm and more concerningly really wacky and seemingly impossible events in an attempt by the human dungeons masters at creating humour and excitement, leading to a lot of unpredictability and wackiness that the model has learnt to mimic. I think it doesnt get enough credit when it comes to this, and what often seems like a stupid mistake it made that is funny to us in its stupidity is an actual attempt at the kind of humour a human DM/GM would attempt. Of course I think theres a lot of accidental stupidity, but for some of the exmaples here its hard to tell which is which, and its probably even harder to figure out because they likely most often blend together as sort of half jokes a lot of the time imo
The old man continues to read his book as you look at him in silence. He is looking back at you, but it seems like he is looking through you. It's almost like he is trying to see if you are truly the one for him.Suddenly, he speaks again. "I am sorry for my words, I was not able to understand your language."> You say "Hello who are you?"You think carefully before you say something stupid.> You say "I do not understand?."The man seems to be surprised by your answer. "I am sorry for my words, I was not able to understand your language." He says, while slowly standing up from the table.> You say "Yes I understand now.""Ah! That is good, I am sorry, but your human language has a few problems in my ears. It was very complicated for me to hear and understand your language before I could speak it." The man continues.> You say "Is not your fault, I'm trying to speak the language you try to understand, but isn't my language.""It's no problem." The man answers, smiling at you.You feel like the man is mocking you, yet you also feel like he is just being friendly.> You say "So what happen now? I need to try another time?""No, you do not need to try another time. I'm sorry but you must try again, it seems like you don't remember anything about the last life." The man tells you.> You say "The last life? witch one?""The one you just lived! You know, where you were a man of Paeris and where I was the Emporer of the known world!"> You say "You was the emporer of the known world really?"The man smiles, he seems to like that answer. "Yes! Yes I was! That's why I have so many people working for me, and why I want you to work for me as well."> You say "You need somebody to work for you? I thought that you was an god emperor with all power.""No, of course not! I do not have all power! Just because some people think I am a god does not make it true!" The man answers, a bit annoyed.> You say "I prefer have all power, don't depend for other.""Yes, I prefer that too." The man answers.> You say "But isn't actualy the case. Is surely why i meet you."The man thinks about what you said for a few moments. "Yes, I suppose you're right." He answers. "But if you work for me, I can make it so that you have all the power!"> You say "You speak about work? what do you means?""I need you to work for me! To help me rule the world! Don't you want that?" The man seems confused by your answer."No, I prefer not to work." You reply.> You say "Ok then can i try to make rules?"The man seems confused by your answer. "Rules?" He asks."Yes, rules. If i make the rules then I don't work. Is the opposite of work." You try to explain.> You say "You want that i begin a story?"The man looks at you, a bit confused. "What kind of story?" He asks."A story of how the world was create." You answer.This is the village of Paeris. A curse struck the villagers in nightmare. My wife's name is Valeria, she is stuck in Nightmare. I need to save her. The only way is create the medicine of the Nightmare. For that, I need to kill a lot of monsters. After I kill a lot of monsters, I can make the medicine of the Nightmare and save my wife.> You to begin in need to take some skeleton powder ! you take your silver sword and your holy book.You walk outside your house. The village is full of noises and the sun begins to rise in the sky.You look at the bright blue sky, shielding your eyes with your hand.> You say "I need to go to the ruins of Cursed Mzulftz not far from here to find skeletons. For JUSTICE ! AND SCENARIUM !"You begin to walk out of the village, towards the ruins of Cursed Mzulftz.> You see ruins from here. And you see some skeleton.The ruins of the city of Mzulft are nearby, you can see them in the distance. The skeletons wander around the area, not noticing you.> You say "I need to find a good sentence before fight... A sentence of hero... FROM DUST TO DUST."You begin to concentrate and focus your attention on the nearby skeletons.A skeleton is nearby, fighting some other creatures.> You great more battle ! you open your holy book and use a powerful light spell to grant you a fire aura.You begin to cast a spell, preparing yourself for the upcoming battle.A large bear-like creature attacks you.The skeleton hits you with its sword. You die.> You and not because the aura of fire makes them burn and create a breath.You take a deep breath and begin to cast a spell.The skeletons are quickly destroyed by your magic.The creature hits you with its claws, destroying your protection and wounding you badly. You die.> You forget your silver sword ! your martial protection is perfect to defend you and counter attack !You cast a spell at the creature, managing to destroy it before it can harm you.A large bear-like creature attacks you.The creature hits you with its claws, destroying your protection and wounding you badly.> You cast protection with your book and healing spell !You begin to cast a spell to protect yourself, however, you are hit by the creature before you can complete it.You die.You have lost the game.Goodbye.But in real the bear was a friend he just troll me.SO I KILL HIM.Who is I?I win bye old man.