zlacker

From the Ars Technica story[1], this is very funny:

> But OpenAI's chief technology officer, Mira Murati, has said that GPT-4o's voice modes were less inspired by Her than by studying the "really natural, rich, and interactive" aspects of human conversation, The Wall Street Journal reported.

People made fun of Murati when she froze after being asked what Sora was trained on. But behavior like that indicates understanding that you could get the company sued if you said something incriminating. Altman just tweets through it.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/openai-pauses-ch...

>>nickle+(OP)
Bloomberg's Odd Lots Podcast had an ex-CIA officer, Phil Houston, on in April of 2024. He was promoting a new book but he had a lot of great advice for anyone to use regarding 'tells' when people are lying. Murati was clearly lying- that's obvious then and now.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-ex-cia-officer-expl...

>>gkanai+2y
Could you explain what "to use regarding 'tells'" means in this context?

>>coolan+YG
A "tell" in this case is domain-specific terminology to denote a behavior that provides information that the person may have been trying to keep secret. I believe the term comes from poker:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_(poker)

>>gkanai+2y
Is there actually any evidence for this? AFAIK, other similar claims about people doing certain things when lying have been debunked(like fidgeting, avoiding eye contact, etc)

>>IceDan+H51
It's context amd person to person specific, with many possibilities for false positives and negatives.

>>j-bos+Gc1
Right - the only reason Murati's behavior was "a tell" was that rational observers had a good reason to believe her statement was evasive and misleading, regardless of how she said it. In that context her emotional response is a funny (yet only barely rational) indication that she wasn't being honest. But trying to go the other direction - "her emotional response seems dishonest, what part of her statement was a lie?" - is as scientific as astrology[1], and a disaster for real people to use in real life. You'll quickly end up accusing innocent people for mean and bigoted reasons.

[1] Modern quack science might be worst than modern astrology/etc, since the stance of "I know it's not real, but..." means astrology folks can freely disregard horoscopes that are socially or ethically objectionable. If you're claiming your BS is actually Science, I think for a lot of people there's a sort of vicious feedback loop. Especially with social stuff, where these claims are essentially unfalsifiable. ("Body language reading is Science and cannot fail, it can only be failed by my incompetence.")