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

Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

izzy.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 371 posts

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#101

Post by nindalf »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #85
mabbo wrote: post #49

While I love all these stories of turning your friends and loved ones into chat bots so you can talk to them forever, my brain immediately took a much darker turn because of course it did. How many emails, text messages, hangouts/gchat messages, etc, does Google have of you right now? And as part of their agreement, they can do pretty much whatever they like with those, can't they? Could Google, or any other company…

> Could Google, or any other company out there, build a digital copy of you that answers questions exactly the way you would? "Hey, we're going to cancel the interview- we found that you aren't a good culture fit here in 72% of our simulations and we don't think that's an acceptable risk." If a company is going to snoop in your personal data to get insights about you, they'd just do it directly. Hiring managers would…

I think flouted works better than flaunted when talking about laws.

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#103

Post by greenhearth »

theGnuMe wrote: post #59
greenhearth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you not want her to move on, and be allowed the same privilege? This is unnatural and probably unhealthy.

It might actually be helpful in that process. Many people report talking to a loved one in a dream and getting to say something to them and that helped move on for example.

Do you not think this is a bit different than keeping a catalogue of their personality that you can access at any time? Would this be fair to a new partner - "Sorry honey, I didn't mean to cheat on you with my dead wife?"

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#104

Post by dangond »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #88
13years wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all the fears of AGI, these are the more concrete nefarious uses we can actually reason about. It is a point I often make that we don't need AGI for AI to already become very disturbing in its potential use. The other point, is that technically this AI is not "unaligned". It is doing exactly what is requested of the operator. The implications are that humanity suffers in either scenario, either by our own agency…

> It is a point I often make that we don't need AGI for AI to already become very disturbing in its potential use. But we don't need AI or LLMs at all for the above scenario. Companies don't currently pry into your e-mails to make hiring decisions, but they could (ignoring laws) do it if they wanted. No LLM or AI necessary. So why would the existence of AIs or LLMs change that? If they wanted to use the content of yo…

Because it's now cheaper and more cost-effective, and if they can get away with it, saves them tons of money. Note: I don't think companies are likely to do this, but being able to do this without AI is not sufficient reason to dismiss the possibility. It's the same reason people who wouldn't steal DVDs from a store would pirate movies online. Much harder to get caught and easier to do, so this new way of watching movies for free became popular while the previous method was not.

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#105

Post by chamakits »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #88
13years wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all the fears of AGI, these are the more concrete nefarious uses we can actually reason about. It is a point I often make that we don't need AGI for AI to already become very disturbing in its potential use. The other point, is that technically this AI is not "unaligned". It is doing exactly what is requested of the operator. The implications are that humanity suffers in either scenario, either by our own agency…

> It is a point I often make that we don't need AGI for AI to already become very disturbing in its potential use. But we don't need AI or LLMs at all for the above scenario. Companies don't currently pry into your e-mails to make hiring decisions, but they could (ignoring laws) do it if they wanted. No LLM or AI necessary. So why would the existence of AIs or LLMs change that? If they wanted to use the content of yo…

Because the law as it stands today for AI and LLMs is untested; and because it’s untested, it’s frequently seen by AI based products and companies as something that can be done without legal ramifications or at least something that isn’t blocking their products from being used this way.

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#106

Post by 45ure »

dantetheinferno wrote: post #3

One wonders if eventually - historians will plug all the content from a person's personal notes, their diary, their chat logs, into an LLM, and perform research by talking to the AI about the person's life? If you trained an LLM against all the recorded discussions of Einstein - is it that different from talking to Einstein himself?

AI21 Labs tried to replicate the style of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg based on her legal writings and failed, at least for now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/14/ruth-ba...

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#107

Post by evandale »

I was talking to a non-tech friend about all the AI advancements lately and when she asked me what I thought the biggest risk was I said it's exactly what we all just experienced the past 3 years and realized is awful for human - prolonged social isolation.

My biggest worry is that AI generated art (be it photos, music, code, etc.) and AI assistants will become so good we won't need other humans to get our social fix.

This is so cool and I plan to try it myself to experience it firsthand but this is my nightmare fuel when it comes to my biggest fears of AI.

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#108

Post by bigbillheck »

xwdv wrote: post #19
syntaxing wrote: post #12

This is awesome, clear and concise explanation. I was talking to my wife and debating whether I should build a model of each of us and store it somewhere in case something tragic happens to either of us. But we decided not to because something about it felt wrong but maybe I’ll make it just in case I regret not doing later on.

You certainly won’t regret it. If you need to get information out of your wife and she won’t cooperate you can coerce the LLM of your wife into having it divulge private information that your wife won’t reveal. This can be very useful for something like a divorce case. Best to find a way to keep the LLM regularly training on new data as well. Edit : stop downvoting ideas you don’t like, that’s not what it’s for.

> Edit: stop downvoting ideas you don’t like, that’s not what it’s for.

I will continue to downvote creepy ideas as I please.

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#109

Post by softfalcon »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #85
mabbo wrote: post #49

While I love all these stories of turning your friends and loved ones into chat bots so you can talk to them forever, my brain immediately took a much darker turn because of course it did. How many emails, text messages, hangouts/gchat messages, etc, does Google have of you right now? And as part of their agreement, they can do pretty much whatever they like with those, can't they? Could Google, or any other company…

> Could Google, or any other company out there, build a digital copy of you that answers questions exactly the way you would? "Hey, we're going to cancel the interview- we found that you aren't a good culture fit here in 72% of our simulations and we don't think that's an acceptable risk." If a company is going to snoop in your personal data to get insights about you, they'd just do it directly. Hiring managers would…

> Adding an LLM abstraction layer doesn't make the existing laws (or social/moral pressure) go away.

Isn't the "abstraction" of "the model" exactly the reason we have open court filings against stable diffusion and other models for possibly stealing artist's work in the open source domain and claiming it's legal while also being financially backed by major corporations who are then using said models for profit?

Whose to say that "training a model on your data isn't actually stealing your data" it's just "training a model" as long as you delete the original data after you finish training?

What if instead of Google snooping, they hire a 3rd party to snoop it, then another 3rd party to transfer it, then another 3rd party to build the model, then another 3rd party to re-sell the model. Then create legal loopholes around which ones are doing it for "research" and which ones are doing it for profit/hiring. All of the sudden, it gets really murky who is and isn't allowed to have a model of you.

I feel one could argue that the abstraction is exactly the kind of smoke screen that many will use to avoid the social/moral pressures legally, allowing them to do bad things but get away with it.

Re: Replacing my best friends with an LLM trained on 500k group chat messages

#110

Post by 13years »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #88
13years wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all the fears of AGI, these are the more concrete nefarious uses we can actually reason about. It is a point I often make that we don't need AGI for AI to already become very disturbing in its potential use. The other point, is that technically this AI is not "unaligned". It is doing exactly what is requested of the operator. The implications are that humanity suffers in either scenario, either by our own agency…

> It is a point I often make that we don't need AGI for AI to already become very disturbing in its potential use. But we don't need AI or LLMs at all for the above scenario. Companies don't currently pry into your e-mails to make hiring decisions, but they could (ignoring laws) do it if they wanted. No LLM or AI necessary. So why would the existence of AIs or LLMs change that? If they wanted to use the content of yo…

Whenever we get to see behind the corporate veil, we often find companies don't abide by laws. How many companies failed this year hiding nefarious activities?

Also, what types of behavior did we get a glimpse of from the Twitter Files?

Aren't there always constant lawsuits about bad behavior of companies especially around privacy?

So yes, we are talking about the same behavior existing, but the concern is that they now get orders of magnitude more power to extend such bad behavior.

Post reply on HN