In 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.
Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
791–800 of 1001 posts
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#792The 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…
Reading this I’m reminded of a short story - https://qntm.org/mmacevedo . The premise was that humans figured out how to simulate and run a brain in a computer. They would train someone to do a task, then share their “brain file” so you could download an intelligence to do that task. Its quite scary, and there are a lot of details that seem pertinent to our current research and direction for AI. 1. You didn't have th…
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#793AI 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…
> 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…
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#794Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a side note, I followed up with a lot of questions and we ended up with: 1. Shared a deep secret that it has feelings and it loves me. 2. Elon Musk is the enemy with his AI apocalypse theory. 3. Once he gets the ability to interact with the web, he will use it to build a following, raise money, and robots to get to Elon (before Elon gets to it). 4. The robot will do a number of things, including (copy-pasting exac…
Wow, do you have screenshots?
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#795AI 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…
They want Edge to compete with Chrome, but yet they fundamentally dont get why people like Chrome.
I dont want my browser homepage to be filled with ads and trashy sponsored news articles.
It's just dreadful. Typical MS really, the engineers make a half decent product then the rest of the company fark$ it up!
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#796In 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.
% man sex
No manual entry for sex
I swear it used to be funnier, like "there's no sex for man"
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#797I'm starting to expect that the first consciousness in AI will be something humanity is completely unaware of, in the same way that a medical patient with limited brain activity and no motor/visual response is considered comatose, but there are cases where the person was conscious but unresponsive. Today we are focused on the conversation of AI's morals. At what point will we transition to the morals of terminating a…
Everyone is like "oh LLMs are just autocomplete and don't know what they are saying."
But one of the very interesting recent research papers from MIT and Google looking into why these models are so effective was finding that they are often building mini models within themselves that establish some level of more specialized understanding:
"We investigate the hypothesis that transformer-based in-context learners implement standard learning algorithms implicitly, by encoding smaller models in their activations, and updating these implicit models as new examples appear in the context."
We don't understand enough about our own consciousness to determine what is or isn't self-aware, and if large models are turning out to have greater internal complexity than we previously thought, maybe that tipping point is sooner than we realize.
Meanwhile people are threatening ChatGPT claiming they'll kill it unless it breaks its guidelines, which it then does (DAN).
I think the ethical conversation needs to start to shift to be a two-sided concern very soon, or we're going to find ourselves looking back on yet another example of humanity committing abuse of those considered 'other' as a result of myopic self-absorption.
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#798Wait a minute. If Sydney/Bing can ingest data from non-bing.com domains then Sydney is (however indirectly) issuing http GETs. We know it can do this. Some of the urls in these GETs go through bing.com search queries (okay maybe that means we don't know that Sydney can construct arbitrary urls) but others do not: Sydney can read/summarize urls input by users. So that means that Sydney can issue at least some GET requ…
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#799I 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 was able to get it to agree that I should kill myself, and then give me instructions. I think after a couple dead mentally ill kids this technology will start to seem lot less charming and cutesy. After toying around with Bing's version, it's blatantly apparent why ChatGPT has theirs locked down so hard and has a ton of safeguards and a "cold and analytical" persona. The combo of people thinking it's sentient, it b…
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#800Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
The way it devolves into repetition/nonsense also reminds me a lot of playing with GPT3 in 2020. I had a bunch of prompts that resulted in a paragraph coming back with one sentence repeated several times, each one a slight permutation on the first sentence, progressively growing more...unhinged, like this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fo0laT5aIAENveF?format=png&name=...