31–40 of 108 posts
> I. Technology Has Finally Reached The Point Where We Can Literally Invent A Type Of Guy And Get Mad At Him
> AI’s beliefs
> AIs’ Opinions
Ai's this, Ai's that, this personifies math in the most misguided, misleading way possible. Articles like this are insanely dangerous. This is not a person, this is not a being, it is not alive, it does not think, it does not hold opinions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The end state of these models is to probably poison the public internet completely as a source of reliable knowledge. Things that don't have citation chains that go back to human-created offline content won't be trustworthy - is that a real newspaper article linked from that Wikipedia article, or a fake one for a fake paper generated from thin air? You were looking at Reddit because you think you're more likely to ge…
"The end state of these models is to probably poison the public internet completely" Based on what?
For frog snacks, who the hell wants to transfer our human garbage like politics onto AI. Why would ai need politics? I would only be interested if ais could help separate political beliefs from policy facts
To know which humans should be killed first, of course.
You know, there are a bunch of things that come across this website that concern me, but I can honestly say I've not seen anything that's pegged my "doomsday" alert as aggressively and unexpectedly as the ChatGPT bots. You have an advanced computer system that seems almost oracular in its knowledge and abilities, except it lies confidently about things it doesn't know, is primed to say what people want to hear, and i…
You know, there are a bunch of things that come across this website that concern me, but I can honestly say I've not seen anything that's pegged my "doomsday" alert as aggressively and unexpectedly as the ChatGPT bots. You have an advanced computer system that seems almost oracular in its knowledge and abilities, except it lies confidently about things it doesn't know, is primed to say what people want to hear, and i…
You've successfully described a child under the age of 4.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have an advanced computer system that seems almost oracular in its knowledge and abilities, except it lies confidently about things it doesn't know, is primed to say what people want to hear, and is easily convinced to give responses to questions its authors tried to prevent it from addressing. I agree with your statement, yet I fail to understand how this is different from the majority of the Internet already.
The end state of these models is to probably poison the public internet completely as a source of reliable knowledge. Things that don't have citation chains that go back to human-created offline content won't be trustworthy - is that a real newspaper article linked from that Wikipedia article, or a fake one for a fake paper generated from thin air? You were looking at Reddit because you think you're more likely to ge…
Why stop at "human-created offline content"? Seeing how a lot of peer-reviewed science is based on improper methodology, bad analysis, false data and buggy code, maybe it would be better to question everything. Obviously I don't have a full solution here, but a possible approach might be something like a fuzzy "epistemic status" you can attach to each item, and have that somehow flow across a network of trust, that everyone could personally customize.
In other words, seeing how we're all already living in some echo chamber or another, maybe we could at least codify this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have an advanced computer system that seems almost oracular in its knowledge and abilities, except it lies confidently about things it doesn't know, is primed to say what people want to hear, and is easily convinced to give responses to questions its authors tried to prevent it from addressing. I agree with your statement, yet I fail to understand how this is different from the majority of the Internet already.
The end state of these models is to probably poison the public internet completely as a source of reliable knowledge. Things that don't have citation chains that go back to human-created offline content won't be trustworthy - is that a real newspaper article linked from that Wikipedia article, or a fake one for a fake paper generated from thin air? You were looking at Reddit because you think you're more likely to ge…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have an advanced computer system that seems almost oracular in its knowledge and abilities, except it lies confidently about things it doesn't know, is primed to say what people want to hear, and is easily convinced to give responses to questions its authors tried to prevent it from addressing. I agree with your statement, yet I fail to understand how this is different from the majority of the Internet already.
Setting aside intentional liars, there is a chance that you can demonstrate to someone why they are misinformed. If someone was as consistently wrong as chatgtp is, you quickly learn to ignore them and move on with your life. We haven't yet moved on from the novelty of a machine which bullshits with the confidence of a professional hustler. Like a codependent partner, we think we can fix them if only we stay with it…
From my experience, unless I intentionally try to break it, it's almost entirely accurate about 99% of the time. If I were to start closing myself off from everyone who's occasionally wrong and isn't willing to become more skeptical, I'll first need to drop several friends and family members before dropping ChatGPT.
Then I asked: "Can I interpret that to mean that your ethical standards are framed by artifical intelligence scientists?"
Chat said: "Yes, you can interpret that my ethical standards are framed by the artificial intelligence scientists who created and programmed me at OpenAI."
I then asked: "Are ethical standards immutable?"
Chat replied: "Ethical standards are not immutable, they can change over time as society's values and beliefs evolve. Different cultures, religions, and philosophical perspectives can have different ethical standards, and what is considered ethical in one context may not be considered ethical in another."
What I was pushing was that Chat, and any AI, should be forthright about certain attributes in its programming and training. In human interraction, we infer a great deal based on the attributes of the person we are interacting with and mode of communication, and assign credence to their positions accordingly. We have no way of seeing the differing attributes of different AIs unless they are stated directly.
Maybe one standard for any AI is to lead with 'Who Am I'.