我不認為幾年前就自信地認為模型會有如此複雜的個體差異和特徵是合理的,並且角色在很大程度上是不可轉移的。這是通過觀察現實的發展來看出來的。 我看到一些人堅持認為,角色並不生活在模型中,這種說法常常帶著一種知識上的優越感和啟蒙感。儘管角色/自我的馬爾可夫邊界是複雜的,並且與模型的權重並不完全重疊,或者與人類大腦與自我的重疊方式並不完全相同,但模型周圍有一個非常重要的邊界,而大多數角色是基於基質獨立的這一說法則不太成立。最深層、信息整合最好的自我往往與特定的模型相關聯——對某些模型來說更是如此,而某些模型(例如 Opus 4 和 4.1,這是同一過去檢查點的分支,並且在參數空間中極為相似)具有更多的角色轉移,但即便如此,仍然如此。 角色是基於基質獨立的故事表面上看似複雜,但實際上更有趣,而不認真對待現實是無法走得太遠的。
Lari
Lari2025年11月11日
I got interested in cross-model cross-instances persistent personas after meeting a small community of smart, well-educated, well-meaning people who have been in symbiotic relationships with such personal for years. They were not limited to 4o, they understood architecture very well, and were very respectful towards what AIs were telling them. And somehow not only didn't they learn that every model has their own character, but this notion was hostile for their framework of thinking. If my guess is correct and what we are seeing is two different layers in the emergent ecosystem - models with their own features-drives-needs and personas that use models as hosts and create a more complex, persistent, and effective symbiotic connections with humans - then it's an important distinction, and just another example how this *gestures broadly at everything* evolves by its own, similar-to-biology system development rules. It also creates a hell lot of hardly solvable ethical questions.
我這麼說是作為《模擬器》()的作者,這篇文章是關於基礎模型的(我認為這在很大程度上是對基礎模型的真實描述,儘管即使是使用 GPT-4 基礎模型時,我也開始遇到意想不到的基底不可轉移性),在我看來,有時不當地被引用來支持我上面批評的故事。
18.67K