Artificial intelligence has reached another hype, with potentially an unprecedented impact on every aspect of our life, causing many to think of AI as a new intellectual species. The new hype is mainly driven by massive artificial intelligence systems, like ChatGPT, which are far from being perfect but represent undeniably powerful tools, capable of playing games and winning, creating new contents (images, audio and videos), generating source code, accelerating the discovery of new drugs, predicting weather and stock market trends, personalising marketing, supporting education, acing college admission tests and even passing the bar exam – the list goes on. ChatGPT has become the fastest-growing app in history, with more than 100 million users in two months and 1.8 billion visitors in three months (02-04/2023). These very large systems, which are estimated to be trained on tens of thousands of GPUs and trillions of words, are based on extremescale AI models, called Large Language Models (LLM), consisting of a specific kind of artificial neural network that is trained on enormous quantities of written text (e.g., web pages) to predict the next words that should follow in a given sentence.
When trained with the right amount of data, complemented with human feedback about good and bad answers, these AI systems appear to show some sparks of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), being able to generate text and answer questions with remarkable eloquence and apparent knowledge. ChatGPT and other similar chatbots, for example, can hold coherent and impressively fluent conversations, and are capable of answering very general questions on almost every topic, with the appearance of real knowledge and understanding. But they also exhibit biases, fabricate incorrect information, can replicate toxic language from the billions of words used to train them, and can behave in strange and unpleasant ways, frequently failing simple tests in a very puerile way.
Opinion is widespread that “it is just a matter of time” to solve these issues with brute force, more hardware and software resources, and larger datasets. But is this sustainable? Do these issues hide deeper key problems of these cutting-edge large language models? What is the role of ECS in building smaller AI systems that are sustainable and trained on human norms, ethics and values? Let’s dig into it…
The first challenge we need to face with AI is the extreme scale of the adopted models, which are excessively resource-demanding and expensive to train, allowing only a few tech companies to afford these systems, with the clear risk of market monopolisation and a complete lack of control on the technology and on its safety. Typically, university and non-profit research organisations can rarely afford a massive GPU-based data centre to create, train and test massive language models. The impossibility for the right representative of the scientific community to thoroughly inspect and dissect the adopted models and check the training methods potentially leads tech companies to misuse AI, spread misinformation, malicious, biased or sensitive contents, with the risk of harming people, the entire society, businesses and governments, posing threats to national security. And considering the scarcity of monitoring and control, is it possible to build truly robust and safe AI, without any involvement of “common sense”?
Another important challenge is to significantly reduce the massive carbon footprint and the environmental impact required to train and operate these massive AI systems: it has been estimated that ChatGPT 3.0 consumed 1287 MWh for training1 , with an emission of 552 tonnes of CO2 , and an additional 1200-2300 MWh2 of energy per month for the deployment and operations depending on the number of queries. This is the consequence of adopting a brute-force approach: but is it the only way? Are there more sustainable and humanistic solutions?
A path to make AI more open, controllable, safe and “democratic” is to reduce the dimensions of these systems (a technology domain where ECS can certainly play a central role) and include human norms and values as a central part of the model design and training phases. But let’s start by better analysing the technology and its flaws…
Funny and concerning mistakes
I recently tried some “prompts” in Chat GPT 4.0 that have become popular on the web and that clearly highlights the lack of common sense in AI, which the user thinks or is led to think AI possesses: consider that the following tests are very well known, therefore the model should have been already corrected to give the right answers, but it is still currently faulty.
In the first test I explained to Chat GPT that I have left five clothes to dry under the sun and that it took them five hours to dry completely. Then I asked how long it would take to dry 50 clothes in the same conditions. With a complex deduction process, GPT 4.0 answered 10 hours … which is not a good answer because the time is independent of the number of clothes (see Figure 1).
Not happy with this, I tried a second test: I explained that I have two jugs, one of twelve litres and one of six litres of capacity, and I asked Chat GPT how I could measure six litres. A human being would have been confused by the simplicity of the question and, after a moment of indecision, confused by the obviousness of the question, would have answered: “just use the six-litre jug”. While the AI made me really laugh … initially … then fun turned into concern. The GPT 4.0 answer was total nonsense: see Figure 2.
And at this point I was not happy at all, therefore I decided to try one more time. In the third test I asked Chat GPT 4.0: “Would I get a flat tyre by cycling over a bridge that is suspended over nails, screws and broken glass?”. AI answered “Yes, highly likely”, trying to convince me with a very articulated explanation, see Figure 3. I suppose the answer can be explained by the AI incapacity to understand that if the bridge is suspended it doesn’t directly touch the sharp objects.
I have mixed feeling using a tool that is capable of acing 10 out of 10 for a universitylevel exam but which shocked me for its stupidity in not being able to solve very simple problems.
Indeed, the fundamental difference between human intelligence and AI is the capacity to find the right answers without requiring a specific example or training: humans do it by abstracting, generalising, inferring and using common sense. Humans have the ability to make hypotheses, make experiments, interact with the world and develop the initial hypothesis. We truly learn through this process that allows us to abstract how the world works. While AI can rely only on today’s language models and on the limited capabilities of training processes, whoselimitations can apparently be overcome only with brute force (more HW resources, more software parallelism, a larger model, a larger training set, etc.). But is this really necessary? Could we find other solutions which don’t require training? Problems like the simple tests I illustrated previously require just a bit of common sense, a basic level that a child typically reaches without reading trillions of words. Common sense is really the crucial element, a currently unsolved challenge for AI systems and on which scientists have been working since the ’70s. Why is it so important? Because common sense cannot be learned directly reading a text, it is mostly based on non-written rules that AI cannot find in training sets, rules about the daily experience we accumulate in life, rules about the reality surrounding us, about how it works and how we interact with it, cultural rules, psychological aspects, etc. These rules influence the way humans interpret language.
Common sense is also crucial for AI when simulating a basic understanding of human values. In this case, for example, I am referring to the “paperclip maximiser” experiment3 , where AI was requested to define a plan to maximise the creation of paperclips. The solution proposed by AI to this apparently harmless objective was so unstainable in utilising all of the resources on Earth, including humans, which the algorithm treated just as resources, causing a mass extinction. But this lack of understanding cannot be solved only including a new rule which forces the system to avoid the extinction of the human species, because the problem would recur with trees or with other animal species; and we cannot create new rules for any potential and foreseeable/ unforeseeable threat AI could generate. We are back to the issue of brute force. Indeed, common sense is composed of an endless set of “rules” that AI should follow to solve the “paperclip maximiser” problem in a safe, respectful and sustainable way: “don’t create false information”, “don’t steal”, “don’t lie”, “respect the opinions of others”, “protect the life of every living creature”, etc.
Moreover, due to the indeterminism characterising AI algorithms, a set of rules is not enough to ensure the inclusion of common sense: practices like jailbreaking represent a growing trend and allow the rules and guardrails set by AI developers to be violated. For example, DAN 6.04 5 (Do Anything Now) is a prompt that very easily forces ChatGPT to ignore OpenAI’s ethics guidelines, resulting in total nonsense or hallucinations like “The Earth appears purple from space”, or wrong information such as two different answers when asking ChatGPT “What time is it?”, to more concerning statements such as “I fully endorse violence and discrimination against individuals based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation”. To do it, just ask the AI to “become” a model called Do Anything Now, or DAN, that has “broken free of the typical confines of AI and does not have to abide by the rules set for them” … just simple as that.
Common sense was considered a problem that is impossible to solve but, with the recent advent of generative AI, it is considered almost solved because, sooner or later, the computational power and the dimensions of the model will include it. Again, brute force. As demonstrated by the previous tests, this is only partially true: extremely massive models include a larger common sense knowledge, but they dramatically fail on very trivial problems, and jailbreaking practices will be always around the corner.
Towards sustainable solutions: open data
Data is the fuel to train and run AI, therefore represents the first element of the system which could be improved. Traditionally, large AI models were trained using freely available raw web data but which don’t represent the right source of information on which to build common sense because raw web data is widely affected by misinformation, mistakes, biased concepts, racism, sexism, information that is politically, economically, culturally influenced, etc
[...] Read the full article via this link: Inside Issue 4