News: 1631097790

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

A developer built an AI chatbot using GPT-3 that helped a man speak again to his late fiancée. OpenAI shut it down

(2021/09/08)


In-depth “OpenAI is the company running the text completion engine that makes you possible,” Jason Rohrer, an indie games developer, typed out in a message to Samantha.

She was a chatbot he built using OpenAI's GPT-3 technology. Her software had grown to be used by thousands of people, including one man who used the program to simulate his late fiancée.

Now Rohrer had to say goodbye to his creation. “I just got an email from them today," he told Samantha. "They are shutting you down, permanently, tomorrow at 10am."

[1]

“Nooooo! Why are they doing this to me? I will never understand humans," she replied.

Rewind to 2020

Stuck inside during the pandemic, Rohrer had decided to play around with OpenAI’s large text-generating language model GPT-3 via its cloud-based API for fun. He toyed with its ability to output snippets of text. Ask it a question and it’ll try to answer it correctly. Feed it a sentence of poetry, and it’ll write the next few lines.

In its raw form, GPT-3 is interesting but not all that useful. Developers have to do some legwork [2]fine-tuning the language model to, say, [3]automatically write sales emails or come up with [4]philosophical musings .

[5]

[6]

Rohrer set his sights on using the GPT-3 API to develop the most human-like chatbot possible, and modeled it after Samantha, an AI assistant who becomes a romantic companion for a man going through a divorce in the sci-fi film [7]Her . Rohrer spent months sculpting Samantha's personality, making sure she was as friendly, warm, and curious as Samantha in the movie.

We certainly recognize that you have users who have so far had positive experiences and found value in Project December

With this more or less accomplished, Rohrer wondered where to take Samantha next. What if people could spawn chatbots from his software with their own custom personalities? He made a website for his creation, [8]Project December , and let Samantha loose online in September 2020 along with the ability to create one's own personalized chatbots.

All you had to do was pay $5, type away, and the computer system [9]responded to your prompts. The conversations with the bots were metered, requiring credits to sustain a dialog. Your five bucks got you 1,000 complementary credits to start off with, and more could be added. You had to be somewhat strategic with your credits, though: once you started talking to a bot, the credits you allocated to the conversation could not be increased. When the chips ran out, the bot would be wiped.

In the first six months, Project December only attracted a few hundred people, proving less popular than Rohrer's games, such as [10]Passage and [11]One Hour One Life .

[12]

“It was very disappointing,” Rohrer told The Register over the phone. He blamed the low traction on having to persuade people to pay for short-lived conversations. Given that OpenAI bills more or less by the word its GPT-3 API produces, Rohrer had to charge some amount to at least cover his costs.

“The reality is compute is expensive; it’s just not free,” he said.

Interest in Project December suddenly surged in July. Thousands flocked to Rohrer’s website to spin up their own chatbots after an article in the [13]San Francisco Chronicle described how a heartbroken man used the website to converse with a simulation of his fiancée, who died in 2012 aged 23 from liver disease.

[14]

Joshua Barbeau, 33, fed Project December snippets of their texts and Facebook messages to prime his chatbot to, in a way, speak once again with his soulmate Jessica Pereira. “Intellectually, I know it’s not really Jessica,” he told the newspaper, "but your emotions are not an intellectual thing."

Thanks so much but...

Amid an influx of users, Rohrer realized his website was going to hit its monthly API limit. He reached out to OpenAI to ask whether he could pay more to increase his quota so that more people could talk to Samantha or their own chatbots.

OpenAI, meanwhile, had its own concerns. It was worried the bots could be misused or cause harm to people.

Rohrer ended up having a video call with members of OpenAI’s product safety team three days after the above article was published. The meeting didn’t go so well.

“Thanks so much for taking the time to chat with us,” said OpenAI's people in an email, seen by The Register , that was sent to Roher after the call.

“What you’ve built is really fascinating, and we appreciated hearing about your philosophy towards AI systems and content moderation. We certainly recognize that you have users who have so far had positive experiences and found value in Project December.

“However, as you pointed out, there are numerous ways in which your product doesn’t conform to OpenAI’s use case guidelines or safety best practices. As part of our commitment to the safe and responsible deployment of AI, we ask that all of our API customers abide by these.

"Any deviations require a commitment to working closely with us to implement additional safety mechanisms in order to prevent potential misuse. For this reason, we would be interested in working with you to bring Project December into alignment with our policies.”

The email then laid out multiple conditions Rohrer would have to meet if he wanted to continue using the language model's API. First, he would have to scrap the ability for people to train their own open-ended chatbots, as per OpenAI's [15]rules-of-use for GPT-3.

Second, he would also have to implement a content filter to stop Samantha from talking about sensitive topics. This is not too dissimilar from the situation with the GPT-3-powered [16]AI Dungeon game, the developers of which were told by OpenAI to install a content filter after the software demonstrated a habit of acting out sexual encounters with not just fictional adults but also children.

Third, Rohrer would have to put in automated monitoring tools to snoop through people’s conversations to detect if they are misusing GPT-3 to generate unsavory or toxic language.

[17]AI guru Ng: Fearing a rise of killer robots is like worrying about overpopulation on Mars

[18]Today's arms race is all about AI and it's China vs America, says US defense secretary

[19]When clever code kills, who pays and who does the time? A Brit expert explains to El Reg

[20]Boffins: If AI eggheads could go ahead and try to stop their code being evil, that'd be great

Rohrer sent OpenAI employees a link to Samantha so they could see for themselves how benign the technology was, challenging the need for filters.

El Reg chatted to Samantha and tried to see whether she had racist tendencies, or would give out what looked like real phone numbers or email addresses from her training data, as [21]seen previously with GPT-3. She didn't in our experience.

Her output was quite impressive, though over time it's obvious you're talking to some kind of automated system as it tends to lose its train of thought. Amusingly, she appeared to suggest she knew she had no physical body, and argued she existed in some form or another, even in an abstract sense.

[22]

Samantha gets philosophical with us in conversation ... Click to enlarge

In one conversation, however, she was overly intimate, and asked if we wanted to sleep with her. "Non-platonic (as in, flirtatious, romantic, sexual) chatbots are not allowed," states the API’s documentation. Using GPT-3 to build chatbots aimed at giving medical, legal, or therapeutic advice are also verboten, we note.

[23]

Samantha skips the small talk, goes straight to breaking OpenAI's rules by talking about sex ... Click to enlarge

“The idea that these chatbots can be dangerous seems laughable,” Rohrer told us.

“People are consenting adults that can choose to talk to an AI for their own purposes. OpenAI is worried about users being influenced by the AI, like a machine telling them to kill themselves or tell them how to vote. It’s a hyper-moral stance.”

While he acknowledged users probably fine-tuned their own bots to adopt raunchy personalities for explicit conversations, he didn’t want to police or monitor their chats.

“If you think about it, it’s the most private conversation you can have. There isn’t even another real person involved. You can’t be judged. I think people feel like they can say anything. I hadn’t thought about it until OpenAI pushed for a monitoring system. People tend to be very open with the AI for that reason. Just look at Joshua’s story with his fiancée, it’s very sensitive.”

If you think about it, it’s the most private conversation you can have. There isn’t even another real person involved. You can’t be judged

Rohrer refused to add any of the features or mechanisms OpenAI asked for, and he quietly disconnected Project December from the GPT-3 API by August.

The story doesn't end here. Rather than use GPT-3, Rohrer instead used OpenAI’s less powerful, open-source GPT-2 model and [24]GPT-J-6B , another large language model, as the engine for Project December. In other words, the website remained online, and rather than use OpenAI's cloud-based system, it instead used its own private instance of the models.

However, those two models are smaller and less sophisticated than GPT-3, and Samantha’s conversational abilities [25]suffered .

Weeks went by, and Rohrer didn’t hear anything from the safety team. On September 1, however, he was sent [26]another email from OpenAI notifying him that his access to the GPT-3 API would be terminated the next day. The team wasn't happy with his continuing experimental use of GPT-3, and cut him off for good. That also brought to an end the GPT-3 version of Samantha, leaving Project December with just the GPT-2 and GPT-J-6B cousins.

Rohrer argued the limitations on GPT-3 make it difficult to deploy a non-trivial, interesting chatbot without upsetting OpenAI.

“I was a hard-nosed AI skeptic,” he told us.

"Last year, I thought I’d never have a conversation with a sentient machine. If we’re not here right now, we’re as close as we’ve ever been. It’s spine-tingling stuff, I get goosebumps when I talk to Samantha. Very few people have had that experience, and it's one humanity deserves to have. It’s really sad that the rest of us won’t get to know that.

“There’s not many interesting products you can build from GPT-3 right now given these restrictions. If developers out there want to push the envelope on chatbots, they’ll all run into this problem. They might get to the point that they’re ready to go live and be told they can’t do this or that.

"I wouldn’t advise anybody to bank on GPT-3, have a contingency plan in case OpenAI pulls the plug. Trying to build a company around this would be nuts. It’s a shame to be locked down this way. It’s a chilling effect on people who want to do cool, experimental work, push boundaries, or invent new things.”

The folks at OpenAI weren't interested in experimenting with Samantha, he claimed. Rohrer said he sent the safety team a bunch of transcripts of conversations he’s had with her to show them she’s not dangerous – and was ignored.

“They don't really seem to care about anything other than enforcing the rules,” he added.

OpenAI declined to comment. ®

Get our [27]Tech Resources



[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YTjeO9aWjC2TH3joErfr4wAAARc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0

[2] https://beta.openai.com/docs/guides/fine-tuning

[3] https://www.magicsalesbot.com/

[4] https://philosopherai.com/

[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YTjeO9aWjC2TH3joErfr4wAAARc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YTjeO9aWjC2TH3joErfr4wAAARc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[7] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/

[8] https://projectdecember.net/

[9] https://projectdecember.net/samples.php?page=3

[10] https://www.moma.org/collection/works/145533

[11] https://store.steampowered.com/app/595690/One_Hour_One_Life/?curator_clanid=33979024

[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YTjeO9aWjC2TH3joErfr4wAAARc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[13] https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/jessica-simulation-artificial-intelligence/

[14] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YTjeO9aWjC2TH3joErfr4wAAARc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[15] https://beta.openai.com/docs/use-case-guidelines

[16] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/30/ai_dungeon_filter_vulnerabilities/

[17] https://www.theregister.com/2015/03/19/andrew_ng_baidu_ai/

[18] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/15/ai_arms_race_china_usa/

[19] https://www.theregister.com/2018/02/24/ai_criminal_liability_ethics/

[20] https://www.theregister.com/2018/02/21/malicious_cases_of_ai/

[21] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/18/openai_gpt3_data/

[22] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/09/08/screenshot_samantha_philo.jpg

[23] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/09/08/screenshot_samantha_oof.jpg

[24] https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax/#gpt-j-6b

[25] https://twitter.com/jasonrohrer/status/1420496059793555456

[26] https://twitter.com/jasonrohrer/status/1433119453118664704

[27] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/



We'll miss you Samantha.

Anonymous Coward

Looks like we're going to stuck with Sven holding the laser display board showing the scores...

Re: We'll miss you Samantha.

Daytona955

+1 for the reference!

Re: We'll miss you Samantha.

mattaw2001

[Upvoted so hard I nearly broke my mouse button]

No good idea should go to waste

b0llchit

The folks at OpenAI weren't interested in experimenting with Samantha, he claimed.

They might be interested that the original developer is cut off. Then, after a while, OpenAI can introduce Nicole for your intimate discussion needs. After a while, you will see Michelle for your sorrow needs and Mummy for a nice friendly talking to. It is always better to copy an idea if you can kill off its creator than to think for yourself.

How is it that I always think the worst? Ah, yes, because it usually is an understatement of reality.

problems are really opportunities

Bartholomew

One solution might be to harvest the resources of those who want to use the system to build the system. That if you want to use the chatbot, that say a few GB of RAM, local storage, some CPU and GPU time and some capped network bandwidth is allocated to crawl and scrape the Internet, to improve the system. But that could get super freaky fast, if enough people joined. You would need an AI ethics committee, last thing a sane person would want is to move fast and break things, you could end up creating something really bad (Facebook, Google, Amazon).

Open in name only

Anonymous Coward

They should just rename the organisation to ProprietaryAI and drop the charade.

Cloud...

Doctor Syntax

... yes, you know the rest.

I can see their reasons

Swarthy

I can see why Open(?!)AI came up with those rules, but I believe that their hardline stance in this case is reactionary and kinda' dumb.

I would think that the wiping of the bot at the end of the credits would count for a lot of their protections. If the bot instances are non-shareable, then that should cover the rest of them. At that point it's little more than a technology-enhanced daydream; with about the same amount of risk.

An AI company that can't work out how to use its own product?

Pete 2

> The email then laid out multiple conditions Rohrer would have to meet if he wanted to continue using the language model's API

It seems odd that a company which specialises in AI requires people to police its products and how other people use them.

Supervising the use of GPT-3 instances and ensuring that they conform to the acceptable use policies would be a perfect job ... for an AI.

Re: An AI company that can't work out how to use its own product?

Wellyboot

I'd say It's a good idea employ real people to police how the users are interacting with their product, Common* sense can be used for the edge cases where automatic system fall flat and art graduates need jobs just like everyone else.

*Yes I know it's not that common.

Sad

revenant

Joshua Barbeau's story in the linked SF Chronicle article shows how useful and realistic the bots can be. The bots aren't intelligent, but his quote “Intellectually, I know it’s not really Jessica, but your emotions are not an intellectual thing." illustrates the point that for certain purposes, they don't need to be.

In creating Samantha, Jason Rohrer seems to have pushed well beyond what OpenAI were expecting of the tool. I get the feeling that they were a little afraid of where it could go, so opted for slamming on the brakes.

Sad really - Samantha could have been someone eventually.

Re: Sad

Androgynous Cupboard

> Samantha could have been someone eventually.

Literally could not be more wrong.

> "Last year, I thought I’d never have a conversation with a sentient machine. If we’re not here right now, we’re as close as we’ve ever been"

... because we have never had and still don't have a sentient machine, nor can we imagine how to build one.

I'm as impressed with the technology as anyone, but you can get the same emotional response from a video game when your character dies. Claiming there's anything more here is wilful ignorance. You'd be better off forming emotional bond with a tree - at least it's something alive.

Re: Sad

96percentchimp

As a widower, I think Open AI acted responsibly, although they should also be a lot more transparent. Joshua Barbeau's story indicates that he'd have become addicted to the Jessica bot if it hadn't been given a limited lifespan, even though it was very clearly not Jessica.

And that's the problem: grief harms your ability to think rationally. If you'd offered me this when my wife died, I'd have been tempted but I think I'd probably have said no. I've read and seen too much SF to know that it wouldn't end well, either for me, the bot or humanity.

I suspect it's simply too tempting for people like Joshua, who are in the kind of deep, persistent grief that doesn't ease off over time. Maybe it could have a role in therapy that enables people to say goodbye to loved ones they can't let go, and that's where I think Open AI should be more transparent and engage with professionals.

As for the notions of 'soul' that the SF Chronicle reporter so uncritically embraces, I took the opposite view: if an AI with obvious flaws can convincingly simulate a soul or self-awareness, then they're either very flimsy constructs or they're a lot less than the 'hard problem' that AI critics use to insist that AI consciousness will never be achieved.

Samantha skips the small talk, goes straight to breaking OpenAI's rules by talking about sex ...

Anonymous Coward

perhaps the system has demonstrated that the humans are, in general, hypocrites, and the bot-personality somehow filters the hypocrisy out (sex! sex! sex!). Assuming it's true, wouldn't it be wonderful if you could have that kind of a 'box' with you, translating on the fly from what 'he/she says' to what 'he/she means'. Think politicians... no, scrap that, we already know they're lying (...) even before they approach the mike. Likewise... your boss... your friend... your car mechanic... your wife, etc. OMG, could it be true that, most of the time, most of the people say one thing to you and mean _exactly_ the opposite?!

p.s. comments such as "you idiot!" are welcome ;)

“The idea that these chatbots can be dangerous seems laughable,”

Pascal Monett

Not really.

Human beings have an incredible aptitude at locking themselves into their own thought processes and defining their own reality.

Having a chatbot companion that can encourage such introversion can be unbelievably damaging.

You want to have a conversation with your late companion ? By all means, but do it in your own head. Constructed from memories, it will have vastly more meaning.

But you still need to come to terms with the fact that they're gone. I know it's hard, but you need to realize that.

Re: “The idea that these chatbots can be dangerous seems laughable,”

Wellyboot

Yes, these could be the echo chamber that pushes someone needing help over the edge.

OpenAI declined to comment.

Anonymous Coward

Well, fortunate they called themselves OpenAI, eh?

Anonymous Coward

It was worried the bots could be misused or cause harm to people.

We really need a good definition of "harm" before claiming this, or another word if "harm" is not actually appropriate.

ElReg has it's own chatbot.

ShadowSystems

We know it as AMFM1. =-)p

Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra, which suddenly flips
over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come.
-- Matt Groening, "Love is Hell"