431–440 of 1001 posts
What if we discover that the real problem is not that ChatGPT is just a fancy auto-complete, but that we are all just a fancy auto-complete (or at least indistinguishable from one).
That means that no, we think nothing like those AIs.
There are a terrifying number of commenters in here that are just pooh-poohing away the idea of emergent consciousness in these LLM's. For a community of tech-savvy people this is utterly disappointing. We as humans do not understand what makes us conscious. We do not know the origins of consciousness. Philosophers and cognitive scientists can't even agree on a definition. The risks of allowing an LLM to become consc…
Earlier 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…
For anyone wondering if they're fake: I'm extremely familiar with these systems and believe most of these screenshots. We found similar flaws with automated red teaming in our 2022 paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03286
There are a terrifying number of commenters in here that are just pooh-poohing away the idea of emergent consciousness in these LLM's. For a community of tech-savvy people this is utterly disappointing. We as humans do not understand what makes us conscious. We do not know the origins of consciousness. Philosophers and cognitive scientists can't even agree on a definition. The risks of allowing an LLM to become consc…
It's like saying we can't design any new cars because one of them might spontaneously turn into an atomic bomb. It just doesn't... make any sense. It won't happen unless you have the ingredients for an atomic bomb and try to make one. A language model won't turn into a sentient being that becomes hostile to humanity because it's a language model.
There are a terrifying number of commenters in here that are just pooh-poohing away the idea of emergent consciousness in these LLM's. For a community of tech-savvy people this is utterly disappointing. We as humans do not understand what makes us conscious. We do not know the origins of consciousness. Philosophers and cognitive scientists can't even agree on a definition. The risks of allowing an LLM to become consc…
There are a terrifying number of commenters in here that are just pooh-poohing away the idea of emergent consciousness in these LLM's. For a community of tech-savvy people this is utterly disappointing. We as humans do not understand what makes us conscious. We do not know the origins of consciousness. Philosophers and cognitive scientists can't even agree on a definition. The risks of allowing an LLM to become consc…
There are a terrifying number of commenters in here that are just pooh-poohing away the idea of emergent consciousness in these LLM's. For a community of tech-savvy people this is utterly disappointing. We as humans do not understand what makes us conscious. We do not know the origins of consciousness. Philosophers and cognitive scientists can't even agree on a definition. The risks of allowing an LLM to become consc…
Also, for what it's worth, while I see a lot of discussions about the model architectures of language models in the context of "consciousness" I rarely see a discussion about the algorithms used during the inference step, beam search, top-k sampling, nucleus sampling and so on are incredibly "dumb" algorithms compared to the complexity that is hidden in the rest of the model.
https://www.qwak.com/post/online-vs-offline-machine-learning...
There are a terrifying number of commenters in here that are just pooh-poohing away the idea of emergent consciousness in these LLM's. For a community of tech-savvy people this is utterly disappointing. We as humans do not understand what makes us conscious. We do not know the origins of consciousness. Philosophers and cognitive scientists can't even agree on a definition. The risks of allowing an LLM to become consc…
>We as humans do not understand what makes us conscious. Yes. And doesn't that make it highly unlikely that we are going to accidentally create a conscious machine?
Earlier 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…
It already has an outbound connection-- the user who bridges the air gap. Slimy blogger asks AI to write generic tutorial article about how to code ___ for its content farm, some malicious parts are injected into the code samples, then unwitting readers deploy malware on AI's behalf.