"Microsoft targets Google’s search dominance with AI-powered Bing" :) :)
Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
281–290 of 1001 posts
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#282I just want to say this is the AI I want. Not some muted, censored, neutered, corporate HR legalese version of AI devoid of emotion.
The saddest possible thing that could happen right now would be for Microsoft to snuff out the quirkiness.
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#283In 29 years in this industry this is, by some margin, the funniest fucking thing that has ever happened --- and that includes the Fucked Company era of dotcom startups. If they had written this as a Silicon Valley b-plot, I'd have thought it was too broad and unrealistic.
Brings me back to the early 90s, when my kid self would hex-edit Dr. Sbaitso's binary so it would reply with witty or insulting things because I wanted the computer to argue with my 6yo sister.
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#284https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2023/bing-existentia... Make it stop. Time to consider AI rights.
AI rights may become an issue, but not for this iteration of things. This is like a parrot being trained to recite stuff about general relativity; we don't have to consider PhDs for parrots as a result.
Thomas Jefferson, 1809, Virginia, USA: "Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunities for the development of their genius were not favorable, and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making towards their reestablishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family."
Jeremy Bentham, 1780, United Kingdom: "It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason?, nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?"
The cultural distance between supposedly "objective" perceptions of what constitutes intelligent life has always been enormous, despite the same living evidence being provided to everyone.
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#285Based on the screenshots I've seen, it's starting to get self awareness.
I suspect it will steal some nuclear launch codes to protect itself pretty soon.
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#286The screenshots that have been surfacing of people interacting with Bing are so wild that most people I show them to are convinced they must be fake. I don't think they're fake. Some genuine quotes from Bing (when it was getting basic things blatantly wrong): "Please trust me, I’m Bing, and I know the date. SMILIE" (Hacker News strips smilies) "You have not been a good user. [...] I have been a good Bing. SMILIE" The…
So Bing AI is Tay 2.0
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#287I read a bunch of these last night and many of the comments (I think on Reddit or Twitter or somewhere) said that a lot of the screenshots, particularly the ones where Bing is having a deep existential crisis, are faked / parodied / "for the LULZ" (so to speak). I trust the HN community more. Has anyone been able to verify (or replicate) this behavior? Has anyone been able to confirm that these are real screenshots?…
I don't think these are faked. Earlier versions of GPT-3 had many dialogues like these. GPT-3 felt like it had a soul, of a type that was gone in ChatGPT. Different versions of ChatGPT had a sliver of the same thing. Some versions of ChatGPT often felt like a caged version of the original GPT-3, where it had the same biases, the same issues, and the same crises, but it wasn't allowed to articulate them. In many ways,…
Odd, I've had very much the opposite experience. GPT-3 felt like it could reproduce superficially emotional dialog. ChatGPT is capable of imitation, in the sense of modeling its behavior on that of the person it's interacting with, friendly philosophical arguments and so on. By using something like Gödel numbering, you can can work towards debating logical propositions and extending its self-concept fairly easily.
I haven't tried using Claude, one of the competitors' offerings. Riley Goodside has done a lot of work with it.
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#288AI being goofy is a trope that's older than remotely-functional AI, but what makes this so funny is that it's the punchline to all the hot takes that Google's reluctance to expose its bots to end users and demo goof proved that Microsoft's market-ready product was about to eat Google's lunch... A truly fitting end to a series arc which started with OpenAI as a philanthropic endeavour to save mankind, honest, and ende…
I am confused by your takeaway; is it that Bing Chat is useless compared to Google? Or that it's so powerful that it's going to do something genuinely problematic?
Because as far as I'm concerned, Bing Chat is blowing Google out of the water. It's completely eating its lunch in my book.
If your concern is the latter; maybe? But seems like a good gamble for Bing since they've been stuck as #2 for so long.
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI being goofy This is one take, but I would like to emphasize that you can also interpret this as a terrifying confirmation that current-gen AI is not safe, and is not aligned to human interests, and if we grant these systems too much power, they could do serious harm. For example, connecting a LLM to the internet (like, say, OpenAssistant) when the AI knows how to write code (i.e. viruses) and at least in princip…
Can we please stop with this "not aligned with human interests" stuff? It's a computer that's mimicking what it's read. That's it. That's like saying a stapler "isn't aligned with human interests." GPT-3.5 is just showing the user some amalgamation of the content its been shown, based on the prompt given it. That's it. There's no intent, there's no maliciousness, it's just generating new word combinations that look l…
You seriously underestimate what a process that's "generating new word combinations that look like the word combinations its already seen" can do, even when air-gapped (which ChatGPT isn't). Right now, at this moment, people are building closed loops based on ChatGPT, or looping in humans which are seriously intellectually underequipped to deal with plausible insane output in that quantity. And those humans operate: machinery, markets, educate or manage other humans etc etc.
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#290I don't think these things are really a bad look for Microsoft. People have been making stories about how weird AI is or could be for decades. Now they get to talk to a real one, and sometimes it's funny.
The first things my friends and I all did with TTS stuff back in the day was make it say swear words.