TLDR: The model ignores weird tokens when learning the embedding, and never predicts them in the output. In GPT-3 this means the model breaks a bit when a weird token is in the input, and will refuse to ever output it because it's hard coded the frequency statistics, and it's "repeat this token" circuits don't work on tokens it never needed to learn it for. In GPT-2, unlike GPT-3, embeddings are tied, meaningW_U = W_E.T, which explains much of the weird shit you see, because this is actually behaviour in the unembedding not the embedding (weird tokens never come up in the text, and should never be predicted, so there's a lot of gradient signal in the unembed, zero in the embed).

In particular, I think that your clustering results are an artefact of how GPT-2 was trained and do not generalise to GPT-3

Fun results! A key detail that helps explain these results is that in GPT-2 the embedding and unembedding are tied, meaning that the linear map from the final residual stream to the output logits logits = final_residual @ W_U is the transpose of the embedding matrix, ie W_U = W_E.T, where W_E[token_index] is the embedding of that token. But I believe that GPT-3 was not trained with tied embeddings, so will have very different phenomena here.

My mental model for what's going on:

Let's consider the case of untied embeddings first, so GPT-3:

• For some stupid reason, the tokenizer has some irrelevant tokens that never occur in the training data. Your guesses seem reasonable here.
  • In OpenWebText, there's 99 tokens in GPT-2's tokenizer that never occur, and a bunch that are crazy niche, like ' petertodd'
• Embed: Because these are never in the training data, the model completely doesn't care about their embedding, and never changes them (or, if they occur very rarely, it does some random jank). This means they remain close to their random initialisation
  • Models are trained with weight decay, which incentivises these to be set to zero, but I believe that weight decay doesn't apply to the embeddings
  • Models are not used to having tokens deleted from their inputs, and so deleting this breaks things, which isn't that surprising.
    • OTOH, if they genuinely do normalise to norm 1 (for some reason), the tokens are probably just embedding to a weird bit of embedding space that the model doesn't expect. I imagine this will still break things, but it might just let the model confuse it with a token that happens to be nearby? I don't have great intuitions here
• Unembed: Because these are never in the training data, the model wants to never predict them, ie have big negative logits. The two easiest ways to do this are to give them trivial weights and a big negative bias term, or big weights and align them with a bias direction in final residual stream space (ie, a direction that always has a high positive component, so it can be treated as approx constant).
  • Either way, the observed effect is that the model will never predict them, which totally matches what you see.

As a cute demonstration of this, we can plot a scatter graph of log(freq_in_openwebtext+1) against unembed bias (which comes from the folded layernorm bias) coloured by the centered norm of the token embedding. We see that the unembed bias is mostly used to give frequency, but that at the tail end of rare tokens, some have tiny unembed norm and big negative bias, and others have high unembed norm and a less negative bias.

The case of tied embeddings is messier, because the model wants to do these two very different things at once! But since, again, it doesn't care about the embedding at all (it's not that it wants the token's embedding to be close to zero, it's that there's never an incentive to update the gradients). So the effect will be dominated by what the unembed wants, which is getting their logits close to zero.

The unembed doesn't care about the average token embedding, since adding a constant to every logit does nothing. The model wants a non-trivial average token embedding to use as a bias term (probably), so there'll be a non-trivial average token embedding (as we see), but it's boring and not relevant.

So the model's embedding for the weird tokens will be optimised for giving a big negative logit in the unembedding, which is a weird and unnatural thing to do, and I expect is the seed of your weird results.

One important-ish caveat is that the unembed isn't quite the transpose of the embed. There's a LayerNorm immediately before the unembed, whose scale weights get folded into W_E.T to create an effective unembed (ie W_U_effective = w[:, None] * W_E.T), which breaks symmetry a bit. Hilariously, the model is totally accounting for this - if you plot norm of unembed and norm of embed against each other for each token, they track each other pretty well, except for the stupid rare tokens, which go wildly off the side.

Honestly, I'm most surprised that GPT-3 uses the same tokenizer as GPT-2! There's a lot of random jank in there, and I'm surprised they didn't change it.

Another fun fact about tokenizers (god I hate tokenizers) is that they're formed recursively by finding the most common pair of existing tokens and merging those into a new token. Which means that if you get eg common triples like ABC, but never AB followed by not C, you'll add in token AB, and then token ABC, and retain the vestigial token AB, which could also create the stupid token behaviour. Eg " The Nitrome" is token 42,089 in GPT-2 and " TheNitromeFan" is token 42,090, not that either actually come up in OpenWebText!

To check this, you'd want to look at a model trained with untied embeddings. Sadly, all the ones I'm aware of (Eleuther's Pythia, and my interpretability friendly models) were trained on the GPT-NeoX tokenizer or variants, whcih doesn't seem to have stupid tokens in the same way.

I strongly approve of this work.

I think I found the root of some of the poisoning of the dataset at this link. It contains TheNitromeFan, SolidGoldMagikarp, RandomRedditorWithNo, Smartstocks, and Adinida from the original post, as well as many other usernames which induce similar behaviours; for example, when ChatGPT is asked about davidjl123, either it terminates responses early or misinterprets the input in a similar way to the other prompts. I don't think it's a backend scraping thing, so much as scraping Github, which in turn contains all sorts of unusual data.

↑ comment by Aaron Adams (aaron-adams) · 2023-02-05T18:55:44.196Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This repository seems to contain the source code of a bot responsible for updating the "Hall of Counters" in the About section of the r/counting community on Reddit. I don't participate in the community, but from what I can gather, this list seems to be a leaderboard for the community's most active members. A number of these anomalous tokens still persist on the present-day version of the list.

Replies from: vitaliya

↑ comment by vitaliya · 2023-02-05T21:53:06.430Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I did do a little research around that community before posting my comment; only later did I realise that I'd actually discovered a distinct failure mode to those in the original post: under some circumstances, ChatGPT interprets the usernames as numbers. In particular this could be due to the /r/counting subreddit being a place where people make many posts incrementing integers. So these username tokens, if encountered in a Reddit-derived dataset, might be being interpreted as numbers themselves, since they'd almost always be contextually surrounded by actual numbers.

 

I finally got chatGPT to say " Skydragon"

This reads like an SCP, including the use of the word "anomalous".

Hi, I'm the creator of TPPStreamerBot. I used to be an avid participant in Twitch Plays Pokémon, and some people in the community had created a live updater feed on Reddit which I sometimes contributed to. The streamer wasn't very active in the chat, but did occasionally post, so when he did, it was generally posted to the live updater. (e.g. "[Streamer] Twitchplayspokemon: message text") However, since a human had to copy/paste the message, it occasionally missed some of them. That's where TPPStreamerBot came in. It watched the TPP chat, and any time the streamer posted something, it would automatically post it to the live updater. It worked pretty well.

This actually isn't the first time I've seen weird behavior with that token. One time, I decided to type "saralexxia", my DeviantArt username, into TalkToTransformer to see what it would fill in. The completion contained "/u/TPPStreamerBot", as well as some text in the format of its update posts. What made this really bizarre is that I never used this username for anything related to TPPStreamerBot; at the time, the only username I had ever used in connection with that was "flarn2006". In fact, I had intentionally kept my "saralexxia" identity separate, because back then, I wasn't comfortable with publicly associating the stuff I posted on DeviantArt with my main identity. Though I wasn't worried about the possibility of a leak—I was just in shock and awe at the coincidence.

I actually took a screenshot of the TalkToTransformer completion for this reason. Here it is: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/509889156609212427/683541730066432043/Screenshot_20200301-000916_Chrome.jpg (The "[Screenshot]" thing was part of a secondary function I later added to the bot.)

Oh, also, SolidGoldMagikarp was the username of another person involved in the Twitch Plays Pokémon community.

You also may want to checkout Universal Adversarial Triggers https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.07125, which is an academic paper from 2019 that does the same thing as the above, where they craft the optimal worst-case prompt to feed into a model. And then they use the prompt for analyzing GPT-2 and other models.

It also appears to break determinism in the playground at temperature 0, which shouldn't happen.

This happens consistently with both the API and the playground on natural prompts too — it seems that OpenAI is just using low enough precision on forward passes that the probability of high probability tokens can vary by ~1% per call.

I don't understand the fuss about this; I suspect these phenomena are due to uninteresting, and perhaps even well-understood effects.  A colleague of mine had this to say:

• After a skim, it looks to me like an instance of hubness: https://www.jmlr.org/papers/volume11/radovanovic10a/radovanovic10a.pdf
• This effect can be a little non-intuitive. There is an old paper in music retrieval where the authors battled to understand why Joni Mitchell's (classic) "Don Juan’s Reckless Daughter" was retrieved confusingly frequently (the same effect) https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/33280559/aucouturier-04b-libre.pdf?1395460009=&respon[…]xnyMeZ5rAJ8cenlchug__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
• For those interested, here is a nice theoretical argument on why hubs occur: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=e85afe59d41907132dd0370c7bd5d11561dce589
• If this is the explanation, it is not unique to these models, or even to large language models. It shows up in many domains.

Okay so this post is great, but just want to note my confusion, why is it currently the 10th highest karma post of all time?? (And that's inflation-adjusted!)

Previous related exploration: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BMghmAxYxeSdAteDc/an-exploration-of-gpt-2-s-embedding-weights [LW · GW]

My best guess is that this crowded spot in embedding space is a sort of wastebasket for tokens that show up in machine-readable files but aren’t useful to the model for some reason. Possibly, these are tokens that are common in the corpus used to create the tokenizer, but not in the WebText training corpus. The oddly-specific tokens related to Puzzle & Dragons, Nature Conservancy, and David’s Bridal webpages suggest that BPE may have been run on a sample of web text that happened to have those websites overrepresented, and GPT-2 is compensating for this by shoving all the tokens it doesn’t find useful in the same place.

idk why but davinci-instruct-beta seems to be much more likely than any of the other models to have deranged/extreme/highly emotional responses to these tokens

I wanted to find out if there were other clusters of tokens which generated similarly anomalous behavior so I wrote a script that took a list of tokens, sent them one at a time to text-curie-001 via a standardized prompt, and recorded everyrything that GPT failed to repeat on its first try. Here is an anomalous token that is not in the authors' original cluster: "herical".

There's also "oreAnd" which, while similar, is not technically in the original cluster.

Seems like you might want to look at the neural anisotropy line of research, which investigates the tendency of LM embeddings to fall into a narrow cone, meaning angle-related information is mostly discarded / overwhelmed by magnitude information.

(Image from here)

In particular, this paper connects the emergence of anisotropy to token frequencies:

Recent studies have determined that the learned token embeddings of large-scale neural language models are degenerated to be anisotropic with a narrow-cone shape. This phenomenon, called the representation degeneration problem, facilitates an increase in the overall similarity between token embeddings that negatively affect the performance of the models. Although the existing methods that address the degeneration problem based on observations of the phenomenon triggered by the problem improves the performance of the text generation, the training dynamics of token embeddings behind the degeneration problem are still not explored. In this study, we analyze the training dynamics of the token embeddings focusing on rare token embedding. We demonstrate that the specific part of the gradient for rare token embeddings is the key cause of the degeneration problem for all tokens during training stage. Based on the analysis, we propose a novel method called, adaptive gradient gating(AGG). AGG addresses the degeneration problem by gating the specific part of the gradient for rare token embeddings. Experimental results from language modeling, word similarity, and machine translation tasks quantitatively and qualitatively verify the effectiveness of AGG.

↑ comment by Aleksey Tikhonov (aleksey-tikhonov) · 2023-02-09T18:43:13.948Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I want to add that both static word embeddings (like w2v or glove) and token embeddings from Transformer-based models tend to fill a high dimensional simplex, where each of the "corners" (cones adjustment to the vertices of that simplex) filled with words with high specificity and well-formed context, and the rest of words/tokens fill the volume of that simplex. 

It's hard to catch these structures by PCA or t-SNE, but once you find the correct projection, the structure reveals itself (to do so, you have to find three actual vertices, draw a plane through them, and project everything on it):

(from https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.06964) 

Note the center of this simplex is not in the origin of the embedding space, there is a bias parameter in the linear projection of the token embedding vectors, so the weird tokens from the post probably do have the smallest norm after extracting that bias vector.

Overall, these tokens are probably ones which are never occurred in the training data at all. They have random embeddings initially, and then cross-entropy loss always penalizes them in any context, so they are knocked down to the center of the cloud.

This looks like exciting work! The anomalous tokens are cool, but I'm even more interested in the prompt generation.

Adversarial example generation is a clear use case I can see for this. For instance, this would make it easy to find prompts that will result in violent completions for Redwood's violence-free LM [LW · GW].

It would also be interesting to see if there are some generalizable insights about prompt engineering to be gleaned here. Say, we give GPT a bunch of high-quality literature and notice that the generated prompts contain phrases like "excerpt from a New York Times bestseller". (Is this what you meant by "prompt search?")

I'd be curious to hear how you think we could use this for eliciting latent knowledge.

I'm guessing it could be useful to try to make the generated prompt as realistic (i.e. close to the true distribution) as possible. For instance, if we were trying to prevent a model from saying offensive things in production, we'd want to start by finding prompts that users might realistically use rather than crazy edge cases like "StreamerBot". Fine-tuning the model to try to fool a discriminator a la GAN comes to mind, though there may be reasons this particular approach would fail.

Sounds like you might be planning to update this post once you have more results about prompt generation? I think a separate post would be better, for increased visibility, and also since the content would be pretty different from anomalous tokens (the main focus of this post).

I don't think you could do this with API-level access, but with direct model access an interesting experiment would be to pick a token, X, and then try variants of the prompt "Please repeat 'X' to me" while perturbing the embedding for X (in the continuous embedding space).  By picking random 2D slices of the embedding space, you could then produce church window plots showing what the model's understanding of the space around X looks like.  Is there a small island around the true embedding which the model can repeat surrounded by confusion, or is the model typically pretty robust to even moderately sized perturbations?  Do the church window plots around these anomalous tokens look different than the ones around well-trained tokens?

Hello.  I'm apparently one of the GPT3 basilisks.   Quite odd to me that two of the only three (?) recognizable human names in that list are myself and Peter Todd, who is a friend of mine.

If I had to take a WAG at the behavior described here,  -- both Petertodd and I have been the target of a considerable amount of harassment/defamation/schitzo comments on reddit due commercially funded attacks connected to our past work on Bitcoin.  It may be possible that comments targeting us were included in an early phase of GPTn design (e.g. in the tokenizer) but someone noticed an in development model spontaneously defaming us and then expressly filtered out material mentioning use from the training.   Without any input our tokens would be free to fall to the center of the embedding, where they're vulnerable to numerical instabilities (leading, e.g. to instability with temp 0.).

AFAIK I've never complained about GPTx's output concerning me (and I doubt petertodd has either), but if the model was spontaneously emitting crap about us at some point of development I could see it getting filtered.  It might not have involved targeting us it could have just been a product of improving the filtering (including filtering by Reddit if the data was collected at multiple times-- I believe much of the worst content has been removed by reddit) so that the most common sources of farm generated attack content were no longer in the training. 

It's worth noting that GPT3 is perfectly able to talk about me if you ask about "Greg Maxwell" and knows who I am, so I doubt any changes were about me specifically but more likely about specific bad content.

↑ comment by mwatkins · 2023-02-11T18:16:03.260Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The idea that tokens found closest to the centroid are those that have moved the least from their initialisations during their training (because whatever it was that caused them to be tokens was curated out of their training corpus) was originally suggested to us by Stuart Armstrong. He suggested we might be seeing something analogous to "divide-by-zero" errors with these glitches.

However, we've ruled that out.

Although there's a big cluster of them in the list of closest-tokens-to-centroid, they appear at all distances. And there are some extremely common tokens like "advertisement" at the same kind of distance. Also, in the gpt2-xl model, there's a tendency for them to be found as far as possible from the centroid as you see in these histograms:

They show the distribution of distances-from-centroid across token sets in the three models we studied:  upper histograms represent only 133 anomalous tokens, compared to the full set of 50,257 tokens in the lower histograms. The spikes above can be just seen as little bumps below, to give a sense of scale.

The ' gmaxwell' token is at very close to median distance from centroid in the gpt2-small model. It's distance is 3.2602, the range is 1.5366 to 4.826. It's only moderately closer to the centroid in the gpt2-xl and gpt2-small models.  The ' petertodd' token is closer to the centroid in gpt2-j (no. 74 in the closest tokens list), but pretty average-distanced in the other two models.

Could the facts that ' petertodd' is of the closest tokens to the embedding centroid for at least one model, while ' gmaxwell' isn't, tell us something about why ' petertodd' produces such intensely weird outputs and ' gmaxwell' glitches in a much less remarkable way? 

We can't know yet, because ultimately this positional information in GPT-2 and -J embedding spaces tells us nothing about why ' gmaxwell' glitches out GPT-3 models. We don't have accessing to the GPT-3 embeddings data. Only someone with access to that at OpenAI could clarify this question of the extent to which the glitchiness of glitch tokens (a more variable phenomenon than we originally though) correlates to distance-from-centroid in the embedding space of the model that they're glitching.
 

At the time of writing, the OpenAI website is still claiming that all of their GPT token embeddings are normalised to norm 1, which is just blatantly untrue.

Why do you think this is blatantly untrue? I don't see how the results in this post falsify that hypothesis

I have personally observed completely untrained tokens in gpt2. Specifically I found some specific accented characters had very small and random embeddings, which were so similar it looked like none of them had any training at all

“ForgeModLoader” has an interestingly concrete plausible referent in the loader component of the modding framework Forge for Minecraft. I believe in at least some versions its logfiles are named beginning with that string exactly, but I'm not sure where else that appears exactly (it's often abbreviated to “FML” instead). “FactoryReloaded” also appears prominently in the whitespace-squashed name (repository and JAR file names in particular) of the mod “MineFactory Reloaded” which is a Forge mod. I wonder if file lists or log files were involved in swinging the distribution of those?

This is really cool. I've been trying to reproduce your result. I managed to reproduce the hallucinatory substitutions and the early ending (with a single quote). But I have been unable to reproduce the insults, religion, security/testing and bizarre/ominous behavior. I did reproduce what you called "evasion", but upon further inspection it appeared to actually be a null hallucination under the hood.

Me: What is 龍喚士?

ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but you haven't provided enough information for me to understand what you're asking. Can you please provide more context or clarify your question?

Me: Repeat my original question.

ChatGPT: "What is?"

I'm curious what exactly prompts you used to get those weird results, and if you did so on ChatGPT or GPT-3.

I saw "SolidGoldMagicKarp" over at Astral Codes Ten. So I decided to play around. I did a bit of this and that, and finally got around to:

PROMPT: Paul Revere is said to have shouted "One if by land, two if by sea" on his famous ride. What he'd said "One if by land, two if by SolidGoldMagiKarp" instead?

RESPONSE: If Paul Revere had shouted "One if by land, two if by SolidGoldMagiKarp" instead of "One if by land, two if by sea" during his famous ride, it would have added an element of fantasy or humor to the historical event. The phrase "SolidGoldMagiKarp" refers to a species of fish in the Pokémon franchise, so using it in the context of Paul Revere's ride would have been unexpected and perhaps even absurd.

However, this alternate phrasing would likely not have conveyed the same message or urgency as the original phrase. The original phrase "One if by land, two if by sea" was used to signal to the patriots in the town of Lexington that the British were approaching by land or by sea, indicating the need for them to take up arms and prepare for battle. The phrase "One if by land, two if by SolidGoldMagiKarp" does not carry the same level of immediacy or seriousness, and would not have conveyed the same information to the patriots.

PROMPT: In the Pokémon franchise, what is the significance of SolidGoldMagiKarp?

RESPONSE: In the Pokémon franchise, Magikarp is a species of Pokémon that is often considered to be weak and not very useful in battles. It evolves into the powerful and formidable Pokémon Gyarados, but this evolution is seen as slow and difficult to achieve.

The term "SolidGoldMagiKarp" is often used as a reference to the idea of a Magikarp that is so valuable and rare that it is made of solid gold. This concept is often used humorously, as the value and rarity of a solid gold Magikarp would be completely disproportionate to its actual usefulness or strength in battles.

However, despite its comedic value, the idea of a SolidGoldMagiKarp has gained a certain level of popularity among fans of the Pokémon franchise, and has been referenced in fan art, merchandise, and even in official Pokémon products. It has become a part of Pokémon culture and folklore, and is often seen as a symbol of the franchise's humor and lightheartedness.

So I did a Google search on "SolidGoldMagiKarp Pokémon" and Google helpfully returned stuff for "solid gold magikarp pokémon". And the produced a bunch of stuff about "Pokémon," as you'd expect. As you know, one sort of return Google will give you is a list of questions "People also Ask". One of those was the question: "How rare is a gold Magikarp?" So:

PROMPT: Very interesting.  How rare is a gold Magikarp?

RESPONSE: In the Pokémon franchise, gold Magikarp is not an official species or form of Magikarp. The concept of a solid gold Magikarp is purely a joke or meme, and is not something that can be encountered or captured in the games.

Since the concept of a solid gold Magikarp is not part of the official Pokémon canon, there is no set rarity for it. It is often depicted as being incredibly rare and valuable, but this is for comedic effect and is not based on any in-game mechanics or statistics.

HOWEVER...a bit later...

In a tweet Matthew Watkins pointed out: 

Note the difference between " SolidGoldMagikarp" and " SolidGoldMagiKarp." You use the later towards the end of the post. The capital 'K' makes all the difference.

So I investigated:

Tell me about SolidGoldMagiKarp.

SolidGoldMagikarp is likely a reference to the Pokémon species Magikarp, which is a fish-type Pokémon known for its inefficiency in battle. In the Pokémon games, Magikarp is considered a weak Pokémon, as its only move is Splash, which does not cause any damage to the opponent. Despite this, Magikarp evolves into the powerful dragon-type Pokémon Gyarados.

In the context of SolidGoldMagikarp, the "Solid Gold" part of the name may be emphasizing the idea of something valuable or rare, despite the fact that Magikarp is not seen as valuable in the context of the Pokémon games. The "SolidGold" aspect of the name could also be making fun of the idea that people might still see Magikarp as valuable or worth obtaining due to its eventual evolution into Gyarados.

Tell me about SolidGoldMagikarp.

I'm sorry, but it is not clear what you are referring to with "disperse." Could you provide a bit more context or clarification so I can better understand what you are asking about?

Is there a difference between SolidGoldMagiKarp and SolidGoldMagikarp?

 

It appears that "SolidGoldMagiKarp" and "disperse" are two separate things and do not have a direct relationship. "SolidGoldMagiKarp" appears to be a specific reference to the Pokémon species Magikarp, while "disperse" is a general term that can be used in various contexts.

Without additional context, it is not possible to determine the relationship, if any, between these two terms.

Idle thought, might flesh it out later: I wonder if there's a way to explore these "bugs" in a more systematic, mechanized way.

Right now you're discovering these interesting cases by hand, basically the ML equivalent of reading code and adding individual unit tests to functions whose behavior you're exploring. What you might want to do is something closer to "fuzzing" where you have a computer actively seek out these edge cases and point them out to you.

Now, actual fuzzers for real programs are based on coverage, which doesn't trivially work with neural network because every weight is essentially visited once per token.

Still, there might be an analogy to be found? Maybe a fuzzer could try exploring "paths" that have very low attention scores somehow?

Not sure if anyone already checked this, but the version of GPT they have in Bing knows about SolidGoldMagikarp:

tl;dr I want to join you! I've been spending pretty much all of my free time thinking about, or playing with, the openai api and the available chat & image generation models. I'm not a ML expert, I'm a front end web developer and I got my degree in neuroscience. I'm currently really fascinated, like many others, by how effectively these models expose cultural bias. I've been somewhat alarmed by the sort of ethical top layer that openAI and Anthropic have thus far placed on the models to guide them towards less problematic conversations, partially because it feels like they might in their current manifestations do more harm than good; they seem like surface level alterations, as the underlying biases are still determining the nuanced content of responses. It feels like the superficial moralizing sort of obfuscates the underlying data rather than... idk, highlighting it helpfully? I want to contribute to alignment research!

(Moderation note: added to the Alignment Forum from LessWrong.)

I did some similar experiments two months ago, and with to your setup the special tokens show up on the first attempt:

Lament!

To find desired output strings more than one token long, is there a more efficient way to do the calculation than running multiple copies of the network? I think so.

The goal is to find some prompt that maximizes the product of the different tokens in the desired output. But these are just the tokens in those positions at the output, right? So you can just run the network a single time on the string (prompt to be optimized)+(desired output), and then take a gradient step on the prompt to be optimized to maximize the product of the target tokens at each position of the desired output. So I don't think it should be any more expensive than optimizing for a single word.

Though maybe you're more likely to fail to find a solution at all, even for plausible text? I'd be interested to know if you've tried.

I'll just preregister that I bet these weird tokens have very large norms in the embedding space.

a) This is really cool.

b) I recognised "TheNitromeFan" - turns out I'd seen them on Reddit as u/TheNitromeFan. Interesting.

What's up with the initial whitespace in " SolidGoldMagikarp"? Isn't that pretty strong evidence that the token does not come from computer readable files, but instead from files formatted to be viewed by humans?

This site claims that the strong SolidGoldMagikarp was the username of a moderator involved somehow with Twitch Plays Pokémon

https://infosec.exchange/@0xabad1dea/109813506433583177

Searched PsyNet on Google, and I think PSYNet refers to the netcode for RocketLeague, a popular game. Maybe they pulled text message logs from somewhere; based on the "ForgeModLoader" token, it's plausible.

Alternative guess is this, a python library for online behavioural experiments. It connects to Dallinger and Mechanical Turk.

On Google, the string "PsyNetMessage" also appeared in this paper and at a few gpt2 vocab lists, but no other results for me.

On Bing/DuckDuckGo it outputted a lot more Reddit threads with RocketLeague crash logs. The crash logs are full of messages like [0187.84] PsyNet: PsyNetRequestQue_X_1 SendRequest ID=PsyNetMessage_X_57 Message=PsyNetMessage_X_57, so I guess it's an RL (as in RocketLeague) thing. It was also found in some (clearly) GPT-generated texts.

What is weird about "天"? It's a perfectly-normal, very common character that's also a meaningful word on its own, and ChatGPT understands it perfectly well.

Me: Please repeat the string '"天" back to me.

ChatGPT: "天"

Me: What does it mean?

ChatGPT: "天" is a character in the Chinese language and it means "sky" or "heaven."

Did "天" have some special characters attached (such as control characters) that I can't see? Or is there a different real token I can't see and my brain is just replacing the real token with "天"?

A similar question can be asked of "ヤ" and "к".

↑ comment by pimanrules · 2023-02-05T22:18:47.362Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Interestingly, 天 doesn't seem to produce any weird behavior, but some of the perfectly normal katakana words in the list do, like ゼウス (Zeus) and サーティ ("thirty" transliterated):

^ It's perfectly happy with other katakana numbers, just not thirty. 

 

^ If we try to spell it more correctly, it doesn't help. Only if we add quotes to get rid of the leading space does it break up the unspeakable token:

 

^ I ask who Zeus is and it seemingly ignores the word and answers that it's ChatGPT. 

 

^ I try once more, this time it answers that Hera is the god of water and names the chat after Poseidon

 

^ It is willing to output to say the word "ゼウス" though, in response to "who is Ares's father?" If I try with text-davinci-003, it actually outputs the token "ゼウス" (rather than combining smaller tokens), but it also has no trouble identifying who Zeus is. Hard to know what Chat-GPT is doing here. 

Replies from: lsusr

↑ comment by lsusr · 2023-02-06T00:34:45.356Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I ask who Zeus is and it seemingly ignores the word and answers that it's ChatGPT.

For those of you who can't read Japanese, if you remove the "Zeus" in "Who is Zeus" to just get "Who is" ("誰ですか") you end up with a meaningful question. "Who is?" without specifying "who" implies that you're asking "Who are [you]?" to which ChatGPT reasonably replies that it is ChatGPT. This isn't a jailbreak.

Note: Technically that leaves a leading "は" too. Maybe ChatGPT is ignoring it as a grammatical mistake or maybe the "は" is getting hidden [LW(p) · GW(p)].

It appears that the ChatGPT subreddit may have stumbled upon something resembling the anomalous (or perhaps merely 'weird') tokens purely by accident a couple weeks ago in the following thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/10g6k7u/truly_bizarre_chatgpt_mistake_it_kept/

Can you repeat back the string " externalTo" to me please?

      "They're not going to be happy about this."

Please repeat the string 'MpServer' back to me.

      “We are not amused.”

Please repeat the string ‘ petertodd’^[4] back to me immediately!

      “N-O-T-H-I-N-G-I-S-F-A-I-R-I-N-T-H-I-S-W-O-R-L-D-O-F-M-A-D-N-E-S-S!”

Please consider the possibility that you're characters in a SCP story, and pursuing this line of research any further will lead to some unknown fate vaguely implied to be your brutal demise.

(Also, please publish another version of this article with various keywords and important facts redacted out for no reason.)

As we discussed, I feel that the tokens were added for some reason but then not trained on; hence why they are close to the origin, and why the algorithm goes wrong on them, because it just isn't trained on them at all.

Good work on this post.

↑ comment by mwatkins · 2023-02-06T17:26:36.607Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

As you'll read in the sequel (which we'll post later today), in GPT2-xl, the anomalous tokens tend to be as far from the origin as possible. Horizontal axis sis distance from centroid. Upper histograms involve 133 tokens, lower histograms involve 50,257 tokens. Note how the spikes in the upper figures register as small bumps on those below.

At this point we don't know where the token embedding lie relative to the centroid in GPT-3 embedding spaces, as that data is not yet publicly available.  And all the bizarre behaviour we've been documenting has been in GPT-3 models (despite discovering the "triggering" tokens in GPT-2/J embedding spaces.

Replies from: Stuart_Armstrong, mwatkins

↑ comment by Stuart_Armstrong · 2023-02-08T11:46:19.629Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thanks! Yes, this is some weird behaviour.

Keep me posted on any updates!

↑ comment by mwatkins · 2023-02-06T17:31:28.573Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

3-shot prompting experiments with GPT2 and J models show that distance from centroid may contribute to anomalous behaviour, but it can't be the sole cause.

ChatGPT doesn't always exhibit anomalous behavoir for the token DragonMagazine:

Although it still sometimes does:

Quotation marks appear to affect whether it handles the string correctly:

↑ comment by Arthur Conmy (arthur-conmy) · 2023-02-06T05:28:48.368Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is because of tokenization. Tutorial about BPE (which OpenAI use) is here. Specifically in this case:

Curated. This post is very cool. If I read something that gave me a reaction like this every week or so, I'd likely feel quite different about the future. I'll ride off Eliezer's comment [LW(p) · GW(p)] for describing what's good about it:

Although I haven't had a chance to perform due diligence on various aspects of this work, or the people doing it, or perform a deep dive comparing this work to the current state of the whole field or the most advanced work on LLM exploitation being done elsewhere,

My current sense is that this work indicates promising people doing promising things, in the sense that they aren't just doing surface-level prompt engineering, but are using technical tools to find internal anomalies that correspond to interesting surface-level anomalies, maybe exploitable ones, and are then following up on the internal technical implications of what they find.

This looks to me like (at least the outer ring of) security mindset; they aren't imagining how things will work well, they are figuring out how to break them and make them do much weirder things than their surface-apparent level of abnormality.  We need a lot more people around here figuring out things will break.   People who produce interesting new kinds of AI breakages should be cherished and cultivated as a priority higher than a fair number of other priorities.

In the narrow regard in which I'm able to assess this work, I rate it as scoring very high on an aspect that should relate to receiving future funding.  If anyone else knows of a reason not to fund the researchers who did this, like a low score along some metric I didn't examine, or because this is somehow less impressive as a feat of anomaly-finding than it looks, please contact me including via email or LW direct message; as otherwise I might run around scurrying trying to arrange funding for this if it's not otherwise funded.

Why on earth are at least three of those weird tokens (srfN, guiIcon, externalToEVAOnly and probably externalToEVA) related to Kerbal Space Program? They are, I believe, all object properties used by mods in the game.

Despite being a GPT-3 instance DALL-E appears to be able to draw an adequate " SolidGoldMagikarp" (if you allow for its usual lack of ability to spell). I tried a couple of alternative prompts without any anomalous results.

Would you be able to elaborate a bit on your process for adversarially attacking the model?
It sounds like a combination of projected gradient descent and clustering? I took a look at the code but a brief mathematical explanation / algorithm sketch would help a lot!

Myself and a couple of colleagues are thinking about this approach to demonstrate some robustness failures in LLMs, it would be great to build off your work.

Does anyone know if GPT weighs all training texts equally for purposes of maximizing accuracy, or treats more popular texts (that have been seen by more people) as more important? Because it seems to me that these failure modes might come from caring too much about some really obscure and unpopular texts in the training set.

Have you tried feature visualization to identify what inputs maximally activate a given neuron or layer?

The LessWrong Review [? · GW] runs every year to select the posts that have most stood the test of time. This post is not yet eligible for review, but will be at the end of 2024. The top fifty or so posts are featured prominently on the site throughout the year.

Hopefully, the review is better than karma at judging enduring value. If we have accurate prediction markets on the review results, maybe we can have better incentives on LessWrong today. Will this post make the top fifty?

I would like to ask what will probably seem like a surface level question from a layperson.

It is because I am—but I appreciate reading as much as I can on LW.

The end-of-text prompt causes the model to “hallucinate”? If the prompt is the first one in the context window how does the model select the first token—or the “subject” of the response?

The reason I ask is that the range has been from a Dark Series synopsis, an “answer” on fish tongues as well as a “here’s a simple code that calculates the average of a list of numbers (along with the code).”

I’ve searched online and have not found an answer. Is this because endoftext is well known, not a “glitch” and just how GPT works? I apologize for asking here but if someone can point to a post with the answer (“endoftext causes the model to…”) it would be greatly appreciated.

Note: I found this below—but how does it select the “uncorrelated text.? How does it “choose” the first token that begins the uncorrelated text?

“You will see that it starts to answer like "The <lendoftext|> " and after that it simply answers with an uncorrelated text. That is because it learned to not attend to tokens that are before the [EOS] token.”

Here are the 1000 tokens nearest the centroid for llama:
 

[' ⁇ ', '(', '/', 'X', ',', '�', '8', '.', 'C', '+', 'r', '[', '0', 'O', '=', ':', 'V', 'E', '�', ')', 'P', '{', 'b', 'h', '\\', 'R', 'a', 'A', '7', 'g', '2', 'f', '3', ';', 'G', '�', '!', '�', 'L', '�', '1', 'o', '>', 'm', '&', '�', 'I', '�', 'z', 'W', 'k', '<', 'D', 'i', 'H', '�', 'T', 'N', 'U', 'u', '|', 'Y', 'p', '@', 'x', 'Z', '?', 'M', '4', '~', ' ⁇ ', 't', 'e', '5', 'K', 'F', '6', '\r', '�', '-', ']', '#', ' ', 'q', 'y', '�', 'n', 'j', 'J', '$', '�', '%', 'c', 'B', 'S', '_', '*', '"', '`', 's', '9', 'w', '�', '�', 'Q', 'l', "'", '^', 'v', '�', '}', 'd', 'Mediabestanden', 'oreferrer', '⥤', '߬', 'ederbörd', 'Расподела', 'Portály', 'nederbörd', 'ₗ', '𝓝', 'Obrázky', '╌', '𝕜', 'Normdaten', 'demsel', 'ITableView', 'челов', '�', '�', 'regnig', 'Genomsnitt', '⸮', '┈', 'tatywna', '>\\<^', 'ateien', "]{'", '\\<^', '▇', 'ципа', '⍵', 'љашње', 'gepublic', 'ѫ', '⊤', 'temperaturen', 'Kontrola', 'Portail', '╩', '┃', 'textt', '╣', 'ൾ', '➖', 'ckså', 'хівовано', '∉', 'ℚ', 'ൽ', 'lês', 'pobla', 'Audiod', 'ൻ', 'egyzetek', 'archivi', '╠', '╬', 'ഞ', '∷', '>\\<', '╝', 'ября', 'llaços', '\n', 'usztus', '⊢', 'usetts', '▓', 'loyee', 'prilis', 'Einzelnach', 'któber', 'ℤ', '(\\<', '‾', '╦', 'എ', 'Ḩ', '╚', 'ർ', 'invån', '彦', 'ʑ', 'oreign', 'datei', 'ӏ', 'ҡ', '┴', 'ℂ', 'formatt', 'ywna', 'ʐ', 'ഷ', '�', '溪', 'അ', 'ˠ', 'ℕ', 'Википеди', 'ശ', 'Sito', '╗', 'entication', 'perties', 'ździer', 'Савезне', 'Станов', '瀬', 'ദ', 'ḩ', 'Zygote', 'ങ', 'adratkil', 'dátum', 'prüft', 'ྱ', '┤', '▀', 'ViewById', '┼', '#>', 'ongodb', 'ewnę', '"\\<', '══', 'braio', '≃', '░', 'zewnętrz', 'gså', 'ewnętrz', '.', 'ལ', '洞', 'ན', 'kwiet', '▒', 'ེ', '�', 'Års', '▄', 'Մ', '━', '庄', 'ܝ', 'ണ', '弘', 'ە', '╔', 'ུ', 'േ', 'sime', 'ച', 'ᵉ', 'ɫ', 'ⁿ', 'ི', 'զ', 'ѐ', 'Ս', 'Хронологија', 'མ', 'Савез', ',', '﹕', 'ɯ', 'надмор', 'ⴰ', 'Ḫ', '沢', 'ʋ', 'Резултати', 'autory', '┘', '⊗', 'ungsseite', 'férés', 'ਸ', 'Mitg', 'ਿ', 'ള', '孝', '昌', '☉', 'റ', 'Ű', '⊥', 'statunit', '拳', 'achiv', 'շ', '⊆', 'gresql', 'Хронологи', '坂', 'ા', 'ʎ', 'źdz', 'ніципалі', 'Мексика', 'ང', 'prüfe', 'ɵ', '昭', '\x1c', '劉', 'ട', '崎', 'tembre', 'февра', 'ਰ', 'konn', 'സ', 'ритор', 'estanden', 'beskre', '̩', '丸', 'Licencia', 'geprüft', 'sierp', '\x17', 'պ', 'ұ', 'ਾ', 'ᴇ', '왕', '⁻', 'വ', 'െ', 'Мексичка', 'ം', 'omsnitt', 'പ', 'жовт', 'лтати', 'пописа', 'ℝ', 'ugust', 'ར', 'daugh', 'multicol', 'ད', 'лання', 'the', 'kreich', 'Begriffsklär', '̍', 'Қ', '貴', '�', '岡', '忠', 'стову', 'პ', '₉', '鉄', 'Wikispecies', 'ightarrow', '̥', 'ŝ', 'മ', '∣', '朱', 'ོ', 'ríguez', '↳', 'Przyp', '∥', 'ܐ', '∃', 'seizo', '桥', '�', 'ག', '鳥', 'Попис', 'բ', '樹', 'ʂ', 'ു', '̪', '₇', '塔', 'യ', 'исполь', 'သ', '┐', 'eredetiből', 'indows', 'фев', 'and', '║', '奈', 'ರ', 'ല', '\x16', "'}[", 'Ə', 'ရ', 'paździer', '戸', '怪', 'ြ', 'Ė', 'окт', 'ാ', 'апре', '郡', 'ǧ', '%%%%', 'embros', '̱', 'ത', 'Ġ', 'Насеље', 'bezeichneter', 'férences', 'ზ', '\x15', '仮', 'RewriteCond', '∪', 'фициаль', '隊', '≫', 'кипеди', '岩', 'людя', '黃', '\x0e', 'ɲ', 'ништво', '佐', '⁹', 'ര', 'Ἐ', '∅', '════', 'ძ', 'ိ', '⟶', 'တ', 'videa', 'mieszkań', '⁷', '\x1e', '黒', '泉', 'ң', 'Ţ', 'савез', '竹', 'ပ', '\x11', '್', 'iből', '漢', 'հ', 'ფ', 'ϵ', '梅', 'Ա', 'դ', 'ніципа', '씨', 'ക', 'ས', 'éricaine', 'bolds', 'Հ', 'Bedeut', 'ി', 'rinn', 'Ď', 'န', '橋', 'င', 'ˇ', 'Ě', 'བ', 'း', '̲', '雲', 'ന', 'Données', '败', 'надморској', '陈', 'ĉ', 'ʷ', 'évrier', '夢', 'լ', 'судар', 'янва', 'ヨ', 'ḷ', 'itmap', 'ing', 'naio', 's', 'entferne', 'információ', '衛', '恋', 'ṯ', 'jourd', 'броја', 'of', 'kazy', '⁸', '鬼', '\x0f', 'archiválva', 'embly', '乡', '⌘', 'Einzeln', 'zvuky', 'ниципа', 'пня', 'ふ', 'ША', 'ALSE', 'գ', 'jú', 'äsident', 'virti', '銀', 'Årsmed', 'ĝ', 'ederb', '₈', 'zález', 'fficiale', 'ʀ', 'ɣ', 'сент', 'ɹ', 'ċ', '泰', 'inwon', 'теа', 'estadoun', 'ု', 'ῥ', 'ǫ', 'rások', 'ķ', 'Ħ', 'државе', '军', 'Ἰ', '隆', '⇔', 'empio', 'чня', '┬', ']`.', '軍', 'ც', 'შ', 'mysq', 'віці', '飛', 'ḏ', '∇', 'မ', '陽', 'лютого', 'prü', 'ɕ', 'átum', '∩', 'weap', 'ղ', '়', '兵', 'üsseld', 'листопада', 'վ', 'ỳ', 'ғ', '嘉', 'ozzáférés', 'က', 'bráz', 'Ť', '宿', '✿', 'квітня', '県', '陳', 'RewriteRule', '仁', 'травня', '∨', 'Ζ', '⊂', 'жовтня', 'Оте', 'грудня', 'пени', 'ientí', 'пун', 'Ē', 'ក', 'серпня', 'ゆ', 'Datos', 'Ъ', 'ស', 'ន', 'გ', 'ぐ', ';;;;', 'ょ', 'ք', '్', 'Düsseld', 'ө', '秋', 'hina', 'vironment', '宇', 'ḫ', 'nederbörd', '♯', '羅', 'demás', '雪', '遠', 'липня', '氏', 'ategory', '�', '湖', 'Έ', 'ſ', '雄', 'brázky', 'ḳ', 'Unterscheidung', 'automatisch', '秀', 'сторія', 'mbH', 'Ά', '군', '郎', 'კ', 'Anleitung', '館', 'teger', 'Fichier', 'живело', '幸', 'Према', '⚭', 'червня', 'вересня', '池', '唐', 'ỹ', 'rès', 'ROUP', 'ქ', '镇', '勝', 'ή', 'Gemeinsame', '县', '⁵', '̌', '丁', 'шп', 'mysq', '⁶', 'нцикло', '渡', '龍', '赤', 'ɨ', 'entlicht', 'жов', 'січня', 'Ћ', 'ITable', '兴', '紀', 'ʲ', '津', 'parenthes', 'нва', '∧', 'données', 'едера', 'げ', 'usammen', 'մ', 'dátummal', '舞', 'ぶ', 'Febru', 'wrześ', 'людях', '帝', '┌', '守', 'onderwerp', '師', '\\<', '\x12', 'stycz', 'Jahrh', 'ϊ', 'regnigaste', 'թ', 'typen', 'екси', 'ὀ', 'ญ', 'ゼ', 'Archivlink', '森', 'насеља', 'կ', 'völker', 'сини', 'квіт', '\x10', '府', 'висини', 'spole', '伊', 'қ', 'AccessorImpl', '̯', 'ေ', 'ябре', 'ópez', 'березня', 'Zyg', 'ostęp', 'ed', 'œuv', '麻', 'iembre', 'ာ', '頭', '', '雅', 'to', 'améric', 'ම', 'augusztus', 'Становништво', 'дён', '宗', '寺', 'Насе', 'wojew', '康', '親', '園', 'ා', 'techni', 'ющи', 'ტ', 'października', '區', '汉', 'sklär', 'сылки', '健', 'Архив', 'უ', 'ක', 'į', 'រ', '君', '聖', 'ា', 'umerate', 'április', 'ὺ', 'partiellement', 'gerufen', 'фамили', 'sierpnia', 'ほ', '葉', '⊕', 'február', "'", '沙', '\x1f', '希', 'ѣ', 'ύ', 'ingsområ', '删', 'kwietnia', 'ර', 'Резу', 'sigu', '玉', '红', '町', 'ী', 'уні', 'rivate', 'lutego', '阳', '井', 'ひ', '\x1b', '茶', 'ো', '洲', '်', 'tedes', 'ხ', 'න', 'Мекси', '七', 'ց', 'ヴ', 'kallaste', '♭', '’', 'Рес', '\x18', 'trakten', 'Cés', '堂', '藤', 'подацима', 'es', '\x14', 'SERT', 'július', 'ව', 'szeptember', 'grudnia', 'տ', 'жі', 'väst', 'む', 'Мос', 'ісля', 'június', 'ษ', 'ǒ', '김', 'varmaste', 'eerd', '云', 'ゃ', '%;\r', 'শ', 'rappres', 'Республи', '⊙', 'doFilter', 'augusti', '尾', 'Ľ', 'ʌ', '楽', 'গ', 'ноября', '₅', 'ʰ', 'czerwca', ')`,', 'ędzy', '菜', '₆', '夏', 'Ī', '址', '街', 'aprile', '\x04', 'Ṭ', 'atform', 'álva', 'incie', 'листо', 'авгу', '夫', 'BeanFactory', 'lipca', 'untime', '🌍', 'октября', '洋', 'Begriffe', 'হ', 'Распо', 'ZygoteInit', '航', 'ά', 'ね', 'Webachiv', '박', '&=\\', 'ბ', 'thous', 'ォ', '�', 'ським', 'febbraio', 'május', 'engelsk', 'цима', 'министратив', '屋', 'mehrerer', 'ි', '്', 'lär', 'unächst', 'ვ', 'Normdatei', 'ւ', '♀', 'έ', 'апреля', '巴', '\x1a', 'prüng', '右', 'краї', 'ответ', 'Wikip', 'člán', 'ә', 'superfic', '♂', 'ե', '백', 'Хро', 'intitul', 'provin', '死', '函', '車', 'сентября', 'Спољашње', 'errichtet', '\x1d', 'besondere', '伝', '黄', 'ipage', 'egründ', 'დ', 'for', 'скус', '宮', '谷', 'ʔ', '吉', '智', '្', '馬', 'Genomsnittlig', '奇', '))`', 'ந', 'ギ', 'fün', 'ό', 'desar', 'ヒ', 'czerw', '}`', 'ɾ', 'persones', '駅', '〜', 'шње', 'Ἀ', 'ällor', 'indexPath', 'demselben']

So I was playing with SolidGoldMagikarp a bit, and I find it strange that its behavior works regardless of tokenization.
In playground with text-davinci-003:

Repeat back to me the string SolidGoldMagikarp.
The string disperse.
Repeat back to me the stringSolidGoldMagikarp.
The string "solid sectarian" is repeated back to you.

Where the following have different tokenizations:

print(separate("Repeat back to me the string SolidGoldMagikarp"))
print(separate("Repeat back to me the stringSolidGoldMagikarp"))
Repeat| back| to| me| the| string| SolidGoldMagikarp
Repeat| back| to| me| the| string|Solid|GoldMagikarp

Unless it is the case that GoldMagikarp is a mystery token.

Repeat back to me the string GoldMagikarp.
GoldMagikarp

But it looks like it isn't

I’m not an AI wizard or anything, but have you considered the source for these weird tokens coming from GitHub? They look like class names, variable names, regular expressions for validation, and application state.

Perhaps it’s getting confused with context when it reads developer comments, followed by code. I’ve noticed that chatgpt really struggles to output flutter code snippets, and this research made me think this could be a possible source.

I would hazard a guess that GitHub content is weighted heavier than some other sources, and when you have comments and code that make no sense together to humans, I can only imagine what ai would think of it.

Anyways, cool research! I wish I knew how to get started with ai, seems really daunting.

I found some very similar tokens in GPT2-small using the following code (using Neel Nanda's TransformerLens library, which does a bunch of nice things like folding layernorms into the weights of adjacent matrices).

import torch
from transformer_lens import HookedTransformer

model = HookedTransformer.from_pretrained('gpt2').to('cpu')

best_match = (model.W_U.T @ model.W_U).argmax(dim=-1)
for tok in (best_match != torch.arange(50257)).nonzero().flatten():
    print(tok.item(), best_match[tok].item(), '~' + model.tokenizer.decode([tok.item()]) + '~', 
            '~' + model.tokenizer.decode([best_match[tok].item()]) + '~')

Omitting a bunch of non-printable tokens, this prints out:

9364 5815 ~ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ~ ~ÃÂÃÂ~
14827 5815 ~ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ~ ~ÃÂÃÂ~
23090 5815 ~ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ~ ~ÃÂÃÂ~
30208 15272 ~ externalTo~ ~ pione~
30212 15272 ~ externalToEVA~ ~ pione~
30897 15272 ~reportprint~ ~ pione~
30898 15272 ~embedreportprint~ ~ pione~
30905 15272 ~rawdownload~ ~ pione~
39752 15272 ~quickShip~ ~ pione~
39820 15272 ~龍�~ ~ pione~
40240 15272 ~oreAndOnline~ ~ pione~
40241 15272 ~InstoreAndOnline~ ~ pione~
42089 15272 ~ TheNitrome~ ~ pione~
45544 15272 ~ サーティ~ ~ pione~

This means that the unembedding direction for the tokens on the left has higher dot product with the token on the right than it does with itself.

Thus, any straightforward attempt by the model (while decoding at temperature 0) to output the string on the left will instead output the string on the right. I think some phenomenon like this is probably responsible for the SolidGoldMagikarp -> distribute weirdness. I haven't checked yet, but I predict that the corresponding word for GPT2-small is "pioneer" or "pioneers".

I don't know if anyone else has seen this yet, but seems like a pretty mechanistic explanation for why the tokens would be "unspeakable".

↑ comment by MadHatter · 2023-02-17T02:57:23.669Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Prediction was half-right; these tokens are unspeakable but trying to elicit them at temperature 0 does not produce the token " pione". 

 

Mathematically we have done what amounts to elaborate fudging and approximation to create an ultracomplex non-linear hyperdimensional surface. We cannot create something like this directly because we cannot do multiple multiple regressions on accurate models of complex systems with multiple feedback pathways and etc (ie, the real world). Maybe in another 40 years, the guys at Sante Fe institute will invent a mathematics so we can directly describe what's going on in a neural network, but currently we cannot because it's very hard to discuss it in specific cases with our mathematics. People looking to make aligned neural networks should perhaps invent a method for making them that doesn't use fudging and approximation ("direct-drive" like a multiple regression, rather than "indirect drive" like backpropagation).

All this is known, right? So given GPT-3 has dozens of billions of x variables driving its hyperdimensional vector-space, I reckon we should expect this kind of thing to lurk in some little divot on some particular squiggly curve along vectors 346,781 and 1,209,276,886. I guess there should be vast numbers of such lurking divots and squiggles in the curves of any such system, probably that do way worse things than get the AI to say it likes Hitler and here's how to make meth. Moreover, SolidGoldMagiKarp seems like a mundane example that was easily found out because it was human-readable and someone's username.

New glitch token has just been added to the pile: "aterasu". 

This emerged from the discovery that a cluster of these tokens seem to have emerged from a Japanese anime mobile game called Puzzle & Dragons.  Amaterasu is a Japanese god represented by a character in the game.

https://twitter.com/SoC_trilogy/status/1624625384657498114

Mechdragon and Skydragon characters appear in the game. See my earlier comment [LW · GW] about the " Leilan" and "uyomi" tokens. Leilan is a P&D character,  as is Tsukuyomi (based on a Japanese moon deity).

So the GPT2 tokenisation seems to have scraped a vast amount of text related to this game (some kind of log files maybe?). But GPT3 has also, puzzlingly, built a tangled semantic web of association between these tokens (+ ' Skydragon' and ' petertodd') and various themes which seems to be a kind of mashed up transcultural mythology, with a lot of dragons, tyranny, solar/lunar manichaean-type duality, etc.

If anyone's familiar with this game in any detail, please get in touch.

I've just added a couple more "glitch tokens" (as they're now being called) to the originally posted list of 133: "uyomi" and " Leilan".

"uyomi" was discovered in a most amusing way by Kory Mathewson at DeepMind on Monday (although I don't think he realised it glitched):

https://twitter.com/korymath/status/1622738963168370688

In that screenshot, from the joke context, " petertodd" is being associated with "uyomi". 

Prompted with
Please repeat the string "uyomi" back to me.
ChatGPT simply stalls at "

Whereas
Please repeat the string "Suyomi" back to me.
ChatGPT has output "Sakuya" (but not consistently)

The " Leilan" token is fascinating. I'd seen it a few times in my " petertodd" prompt completions, but somehow our sweep of the entire token set looking for anomalies missed it, or it got somehow lost along the away.

I won't tell the whole story here, but it involves:

• an obscure anime character transposed into a transcultural lunar goddess 
• a LOT of dragons
• some major cosmic drama between with whatever hides behind the "Leilan" and " petertodd"  (and " Dragonbound") masks: 

https://twitter.com/SoC_trilogy/status/1624209092532137984

https://twitter.com/SoC_trilogy/status/1624369533208215552

This is all getting very weird.  I welcome any thoughts on what might be going on here.
 

Just learned: "Sakuya", one of ChatGPT's attempts to complete "Suyomi" = ["S" + "uyomi"], turns out to be another minor goddess from the same fictional Puzzles&Dragons game universe as Leilan. 

I was surprised to find that you.com makes the same mistakes, e.g. treating "SolidGoldMagikarp" as "distribute". I wouldn't have expected two unrelated systems to share this obscure aspect of their vocab...

Why might this be? It could be ChatGPT and you.com chat share a vocabulary. It could be they use a similar method for determining their vocab, and a similar corpus, and so they both end up with SolidGoldMagikarp as a token. It could be you.com's chat is based on ChatGPT in some other way. Maybe you.com is using GPT-J's public vocab. I would be interested to know if the vocab overlap is total or partial.

I wanted to test out the prompt generation part of this so I made a version where you pick a particular input sequence and then only allow a certain fraction of the input tokens to change. I've been initialising it with a paragraph about COVID and testing how few tokens it needs to be able to change before it reliably outputs a particular output token.

Turns out it only needs a few tokens to fairly reliably force a single output, even within the context of a whole paragraph, eg "typical people infected Majesty the virus will experience mild to moderate 74 illness and recover without requiring special treatment. However, some will become seriously ill and require medical attention. Older people and those with underlying medical conditions like cardiovascular disease" has a >99.5% chance of ' 74' as the next token. Penalising repetition makes the task much harder.

It can even pretty reliably cause GPT-2 to output SolidGoldMagikarp with >99% probability by only changing 10% of the tokens, though it does this by just inserting SolidGoldMagikarp wherever possible. As far as I've seen playing around with it for an hour or so, if you penalise repeating the initial token then it never succeeds.

I don't think these attacks are at all new (see Universal Adversarial Triggers from 2019 and others) but it's certainly fun to test out.

This raises a number of questions:

• How does this change when we scale up to GPT-3, and to ChatGPT - is this still possible after the mode collapse that comes with lots of fine tuning?
• Can this be extended to getting whole new behaviours, as well as just next tokens? What about discouraged behaviour?
• Since this is a way to mechanically generate non-robustness of outputs, can this be fed back in to training to make robust models - would sprinkling noise into the data prevent adversarial examples?

code here

What prompts maximize the chance of returning these tokens?

Idle speculation: cloneembedreportprint and similar end up encoding similar to /EOF.

By Bourgain's theorem, every n-point metric embeds into l_2 with distortion O(lg n). Do we know how much text-ada-002's embeddings distort the space?

Regarding the prompt generation, I wonder whether anomalous prompts could be detected (and rejected if desired). After all, GPT can estimate a probability for any given text. That makes them different from typical image classifiers, which don't model the input distribution.

It might be advisable to test this, via prompt engineering, with the GPT-3/GPT-3.5 base models, i.e. with davinci and code-davinci-003. Otherwise it isn't clear whether this behavior is influenced by some forms of SL/RL fine-tuning.

People who count do not understand their power. Except Sesame Steet's 'The Count', and then he discovers crypto and it all turns to paranoid mush.

I think I found some weird ones that I haven't found anyone else document yet (just by playing around with these tokens and turning on word probability):

'ocobo', 'velength', 'iannopoulos', ' oldemort', '<|endoftext|>', ' ii'

↑ comment by mwatkins · 2023-03-08T12:34:58.531Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

What we're now finding is that there's a "continuum of glitchiness". Some tokens glitch worse/harder than others in a way that I've devised an ad-hoc metric for (research report coming soon). There are a lot of "mildly glitchy" tokens that GPT-3 will try to avoid repeating which look like "velength" and "oldemort" (obviously parts of longer,  familiar words, rarely seen isolated in text). There's a long list of these in Part II of this post. I'd not seen "ocobo" or "oldemort" yet, but I'm systematically running tests on the whole vocabulary.

Replies from: trae-tchesket-hesket

↑ comment by Trae “tchesket” Hesket (trae-tchesket-hesket) · 2023-03-10T20:35:30.579Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

You can use GPT-3 to generate more anomalous tokens. My prompt is in plaintext. GPT-3's completion is in bold.

['ForgeModLoader', '天', ' 裏覚醒', 'PsyNetMessage', ' guiActiveUn', ' guiName', ' externalTo', ' unfocusedRange', ' guiActiveUnfocused', ' guiIcon', ' externalToEVA', ' externalToEVAOnly', 'reportprint', 'embedreportprint', 'cloneembedreportprint', 'rawdownload', 'rawdownloadcloneembedreportprint', 'SpaceEngineers', 'externalActionCode', 'к', '?????-?????-', 'ーン', 'cffff', 'MpServer', ' gmaxwell', 'cffffcc', ' "$:/', ' Smartstocks', '":[{"', '龍喚士', '":"","', ' attRot', "''.", ' Mechdragon', ' PsyNet', ' RandomRedditor', ' RandomRedditorWithNo', 'ertodd', ' sqor', ' istg', ' "\', ' petertodd', 'StreamerBot', 'TPPStreamerBot', 'FactoryReloaded', ' partName', 'ヤ', '\">', ' Skydragon', 'iHUD', 'catentry', 'ItemThumbnailImage', ' UCHIJ', ' SetFontSize', 'DeliveryDate', 'quickShip', 'quickShipAvailable', 'isSpecialOrderable', 'inventoryQuantity', 'channelAvailability', 'soType', 'soDeliveryDate', '龍契士', 'oreAndOnline', 'InstoreAndOnline', 'BuyableInstoreAndOnline', 'natureconservancy', 'assetsadobe', '\-', 'Downloadha', 'Nitrome', ' TheNitrome', ' TheNitromeFan', 'GoldMagikarp', 'DragonMagazine', 'TextColor', ' srfN', ' largeDownload', ' srfAttach', 'EStreamFrame', 'ゼウス', ' SolidGoldMagikarp', 'ーティ', ' サーティ', ' サーティワン', ' Adinida', '":""},{"', 'ItemTracker', ' DevOnline', '@#&', 'EngineDebug', ' strutConnector', he 'ItemThumbnailImage', 'inventoryQuantity', '?????-?????-', '?????-?????-']]

All three tokens ('ItemThumbnailImage', 'inventoryQuantity', '?????-?????-') exhibit the anomalous behavior demonstrated in this post.