Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How do AIs' political opinions change as they get smarter and better-trained?

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 108 posts

Re: How do AIs' political opinions change as they get smarter and better-trained?

#41

Post by jvalencia »

this_user wrote: post #28
roughly wrote: post #4

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…

I think your problem with these models may be that ChatGPT has effectively reached the equivalent of the "uncanny valley" for language. It is not real, but it is also too close to the real thing to recognise that fact immediately. It could be real, but not quite.

I think the OP goes a step further to note that not only is it uncanny, it is dangerous.

Re: How do AIs' political opinions change as they get smarter and better-trained?

#42

Post by majormajor »

falcor84 wrote: post #37
majormajor wrote: post #25

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…

>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? 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…

Yeah, in my heads, human creation or curation is a "necessary, but not sufficient" thing.

A ton of junk is already out there pre-computer-generated-content. So being human created isn't enough to let us know it's high quality - but not being human created is enough for the immediate future to let us know that it can't be trusted for domains where you aren't expert enough to tell the difference between "plausible" and "correct." And then in the anonymous public internet, you simply won't be able to tell "human created" from "computer created" so you'll have to just treat it all as low-value spam.

Another interesting question here: let's say someone created a future AI that could actually be relied on to give "correct" or at least "properly caveated and nuanced" answers to questions - how is the layman possibly to know if that engine is actually being used behind the scenes of any online text? E.g. does the bullshit ML-generated content poison the well for "better" AI too, not just for anonymous people?

Re: How do AIs' political opinions change as they get smarter and better-trained?

#43

Post by falcor84 »

RayVR wrote: post #35
roughly wrote: post #4

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…

> 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. You've successfully described a child under the age of 4.

I think this hits the nail on the head - chatGPT is like a precocious 4 year-old, or maybe even 6 year-old. I'm concerned about what will happen when one of its successors "reaches puberty".

Re: How do AIs' political opinions change as they get smarter and better-trained?

#45

Post by danielodievich »

Isaac Asimov's Robot Stories are yet again prescient and applicable. I direct you to the Liar from I, Robot collection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar!_(short_story) in which the robot in question can read everyone's thoughts and starts telling everything they want to hear. It does not end well for him or for anyone around him.

Re: How do AIs' political opinions change as they get smarter and better-trained?

#46

Post by fallingknife »

voz_ wrote: post #31

> AI's opinions > 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.

> this is not a being, it is not alive, it does not think, it does not hold opinions.

Why not? What makes your neural net any more special? There is no scientific definition of any of these concepts.

Re: How do AIs' political opinions change as they get smarter and better-trained?

#47

Post by rhacker »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #15
roughly wrote: post #4

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 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.

Automatic filtering (or deprioritizing).

Me: Answer just YES or NO: is this a left leaning statement: I am against abortion.

Chat GPT: No.

Me: Answer just YES or NO: is this a right leaning statement: I am for guns.

Chat GPT: Yes.

It allows for automatic filtering (say in twitter) or other mediums.

Re: How do AIs' political opinions change as they get smarter and better-trained?

#48

Post by kravens_last »

this_user wrote: post #28
roughly wrote: post #4

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…

I think your problem with these models may be that ChatGPT has effectively reached the equivalent of the "uncanny valley" for language. It is not real, but it is also too close to the real thing to recognise that fact immediately. It could be real, but not quite.

"Uncanny valley" is actually the opposite of what you mentioned.

The uncanny valley hypothesis predicts that an entity appearing almost human will risk eliciting cold, eerie feelings in viewers. For CGI and things that have visual queues, the minute differences in movement and facial muscle contractions contribute tremendously to our emotional responses to the "realness" of the thing.

ChatGPT has no such thing as it's virtually impossible to differentiate between an AI bot's writing and a human being's writing. It simply typically reads as concise and grammatically correct, if generic, university educated writing.

I actually WISH that there was a "tell" that allowed for an "uncanny valley" like experience, but chatGPT is as close to real as "real" is.

Post reply on HN