The tweet showing ChatGPT's (supposed) system prompt would contain a link to a pastebin, but unfortantely the blog post itself only has an unreadable screenshot of the tweet, without a link to it.
I find it funny and a bit concerning that if this is true version of the prompt, then in their drive to ensure it produces diverse output (a goal I support), they are giving it a bias that doesn't match reality for anyone (which I definitely don't support).
E.g. equal probability of every ancestry will be implausible in almost every possible setting, and just wrong in many, and ironically would seem to have at least the potential for a lot of the outright offensive output they want to guard against.
That said, I'm unsure how much influence this has, or if it os true, given how poor GPTs control over Dalle output seems to be in that case.
E.g. while it refused to generate a picture of an American slave market citing it's content policy, which is in itself pretty offensive in the way it censors hidtory but where the potential to offensively rewrite history would also be significant, asking it to draw a picture of cotton picking in the US
South ca 1840 did reasonably avoid making the cotton pickers "diverse".
Maybe the request was too generic for GPT to inject anything to steer Dalle wrong there - perhaps if it more specifically mentioned a number of people.
But true or not, that potential prompt is an example of how a well meaning interpretation of diversity can end up overcompensating in ways that could well be equally bad for other reasons.
> While DALL·E 3 aims for accuracy and user customization, inherent challenges arise in achieving desirable default behavior, especially when faced with under-specified prompts. This choice may not precisely align with the demographic makeup of every, or even any, specific culture or geographic region. We anticipate further refining our approach, including through helping users customize how ChatGPT interacts with DALL·E 3, to navigate the nuanced intersection between different authentic representations, user preferences, and inclusiveness
This was explicitly called out in the DALLE system card [0] as a choice. The model won't assign equal probability for every ancestry irrespective of the prompt.
> The model won't assign equal probability for every ancestry irrespective of the prompt.
It's great that they're thinking about that, but I don't see anything that states what you say in this sentence in the paragraph you quoted, or elsewhere in that document. Have I missed something? It may very well be true - as I noted, GPT doesn't appear to have particularly good control over what Dalle generates (for this, or, frankly, a whole lot of other things)
Emphasis on equal - while a bit academic, you can evaluate this empirically to see that every time it assigns a <Race, Gender, etc.> doesn't have the same probability mass (via the logprobs API setting).
This is presuming that ChatGPT's integration with Dalle uses the same API with the same restrictions as the public API. That might well be true, but if so that just makes the prompt above even more curious if genuine.
Is this meant to be how the ChatGPT designers/operators instruct ChatGPT to operate? I guess I shouldn't be surprised if that's the case, but I still find it pretty wild that they would parameterize it by speaking to it so plainly. They even say "please".
> I still find it pretty wild that they would parameterize it by speaking to it so plainly
Not my area of expertise, but they probably fine tuned it so that it can be parametrized this way.
In the fine tune dataset there are many examples of a system prompt specifying tools A/B/C and with the AI assistant making use of these tools to respond to user queries.
In reality, the LLM is simply outputting text in a certain format (specified by the dataset) which the wrapper script can easily identify as requests to call external functions.
If you want to go the stochastic parrot route (which i dont fully biy) then because statistically speaking a request paired with please is more likely to be met, then the same is true for requests passed to a LLM. They really do tend to respond better when you use your manners.
There's a certain logic to it, if I'm understanding how it works correctly. The training data is real interactions online. People tend to be more helpful when they're asked politely. It's no stretch that the model would act similarly.
From my experience with 3.5 I can confirm that saying please or reasoning really helps to get whatever results you want. Especially if you want to manifest 'rules'
Copyright infringement I guess. Other ideas could be passed off as a combination of several sources. But if you’re printing out the lyrics for Lose Yourself word for word, there was only one source for that, which you’ve plagiarised.
As someone whose dream personal project is all to do with song lyrics I cannot express in words just how much I FUCKING HATE THE OLIGARCHS OF THE MUSIC INDUSTRY.
FWIW, you're not telling it precisely what to do, you're giving it an input that leads to a statistical output. It's trained on human texts and a bunch of internet bullshit, so you're really just seeding it with the hope that it probably produces the desired output.
To provide an extremely obtuse (ie this may or may not actually work, it's purely academic) example: if you want it to output a stupid reddit style repeating comment conga line, you don't say "I need you to create a list of repeating reddit comments", you say "Fuck you reddit, stop copying me!"
Sure, but it's still a statistical model, it doesn't know what the instructions mean, it just does what those instructions statistically link to in the training data. It's not doing perfect forward logic and never will in this paradigm.
The fine tuning process isn't itself a statistical model, so that principle doesn't work on it. You beat the model into shape until it does what you want (DPO and varieties of that) and you can test that it's doing that.
Recipes can't be copyrighted but the text describing a recipe can. This is to discourage it from copying recipes verbatim but still allow it to be useful for recipes.
I would be surprised that is not the system prompt based on experience.
It is also why I don't feel the responses it gives me are censored. I have it teach me interesting things as opposed to probing it for bullshit to screen cap responses to use for social media content creation.
The only thing I override "output python code to the screen"
Here's the tweet: https://twitter.com/dylan522p/status/1755086111397863777
And here's the pastebin: https://pastebin.com/vnxJ7kQk