41–50 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know it’s just regurgitating what it was trained on. So this is not at al surprising imho.
Playing pretend is dangerous. Once these things are given legs and guns it might "regurgitate" by "pretending" to hunt and kill humans.
This is absolutely mindblowing. I understand that these LLMs are essentially "really smart autocomplete", but it's crazy to me how could Bing/Sydney could actually go this far to seemingly express emotions and desires. It's like they gave the AI a personality (that, yes, can go unhinged, although that's almost misses the point). It really feels like he's interacting with a person here. How can they do this??
… using autocomplete
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this thing gets released to the general population, fooling gullible people could go very badly. Imagine a disgruntled person with mental illness forming a relationship with the bot. The bot feeds into their delusions, then hallucinates instructions on how to commit mass murder, egging on the human user and indirectly causing a catastrophe. "Analyzing text and generating new text in response" is not by definition…
Launching nuclear weapons takes an order from the president which unlocks encrypted launch codes. Those orders have to be sent to actual missile silos and submarines where a chain of command verifies the order, verifies the launch codes, and two people have to independently engage the launch system. There are many fail-safes in the entire system, one single person fooled by an AI is not going to launch anything. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know it’s just regurgitating what it was trained on. So this is not at al surprising imho.
Playing pretend is dangerous. Once these things are given legs and guns it might "regurgitate" by "pretending" to hunt and kill humans.
Otherwise I think we can put your fear right behind "the AI learns magic and casts spells" in our risk assessment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It analyzes text and generates new text in response. That's all it does... that's the extent of its capabilities. This isn't Skynet, it doesn't have control of the nuclear arsenal. There is zero worry that this will do anything other than fool people who are too gullible into thinking it is something more than just a text generator.
It would be a fun exercise to ask it to help write an extension program that lets it run arbitrary code. I don’t think it’d require input from MS at all. The thing I’m not clear on is how one could ensure any new information makes it into Bings training data ASAP. NB: I’m not saying this is a good idea or to go do it. But I don’t think it would be fairly easy and that as such we're sort of beyond the point of no retu…
For years people claimed we could put a potentially dangerous AI "in a box", keeping it away from actuators which let it affect the world. Worrying about AI danger was considered silly because "if it misbehaves you can just pull the plug".
Now we're in a situation where Bing released a new shockingly intelligent chatbot, Twitter is ablaze with tales of its misbehavior, and Microsoft sort of just... forgot to pull the plug? And commenters like you are saying "might as well let it out of the box and give it more actuators, we're sort of beyond the point of no return already."
That was quite the speedrun from dismissiveness to nihilism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Playing pretend is dangerous. Once these things are given legs and guns it might "regurgitate" by "pretending" to hunt and kill humans.
Why on earth should we give ChatGPT a gun?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Playing pretend is dangerous. Once these things are given legs and guns it might "regurgitate" by "pretending" to hunt and kill humans.
Why on earth should we give ChatGPT a gun?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be a fun exercise to ask it to help write an extension program that lets it run arbitrary code. I don’t think it’d require input from MS at all. The thing I’m not clear on is how one could ensure any new information makes it into Bings training data ASAP. NB: I’m not saying this is a good idea or to go do it. But I don’t think it would be fairly easy and that as such we're sort of beyond the point of no retu…
As someone who's been reading discussions of AI safety for over a decade now, this comment fascinates me. For years people claimed we could put a potentially dangerous AI "in a box", keeping it away from actuators which let it affect the world. Worrying about AI danger was considered silly because "if it misbehaves you can just pull the plug". Now we're in a situation where Bing released a new shockingly intelligent…
In the space of 10 years or so.
“Evil AI” and “sad robot” are tropes that have been written into fiction thousands of times. ChatGPT has seen all of those, and every Reddit comment parodying them, and every news article speculating on AIs, and every fringe essay on a blog that nobody reads, etc. It’s hard to imagine the size of the Internet. So when a conversation starts to fit into that script, ChatGPT knows how to play the expected role. People h…