Live data from Hacker News

Gemini AI tells the user to die

tomshardware.com

131–140 of 150 posts

Re: Gemini AI tells the user to die

#131
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to resist? Why on earth would you lol. It’s not significantly different from googling each question.

It's absolutely significantly different, especially for certain types of classes and problems. > Why on earth would you lol. Because school is hard, I was a kid, homework takes a ton of time, and I would rather be playing video games. Of course the temptation to cheat would be there.

> It's absolutely significantly different, especially for certain types of classes and problems.

How is it different?

A flathead screwdriver isn’t good for the class of screws that have a hex head, but both flathead and hex screwdrivers are still screwdrivers.

Looking things up on Google was considered cheating in the early 2000s

> Because school is hard, I was a kid, homework takes a ton of time, and I would rather be playing video games

This is a reason to NOT resist. I was asking “why on earth would you resist the temptation”

Re: Gemini AI tells the user to die

#132
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to resist? Why on earth would you lol. It’s not significantly different from googling each question.

Maybe it depends on why you're taking classes in the first place. If you just want the degree to unlock certain jobs or prestige, and aren't morally opposed to cheating, I can see how it would seem rational.

That’s probably the most common reason for anyone to be in school.

Re: Gemini AI tells the user to die

#133
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to resist? Why on earth would you lol. It’s not significantly different from googling each question.

Why not bring a forklift into the gym?

If your goal is just to raise some weight above an arbitrary height, why wouldn’t you?

Re: Gemini AI tells the user to die

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link seems to be the obvious cut and paste cheating coupled with how many forums respond negatively to overt cheating with a dose of perspective from the llm as the responder to said flagrant cheating

Yeah and in these forums people tend to say: “This is only for you, human” It’s one thing to come up with an explanation that makes sense. It’s another to try to scaffold an explanation to adjust reality into the way you want it to be. Stop lying to yourself, human. The best answer we have right now is we don’t understand what’s going on in these models.

Looks to me like they seeded the distinction several messages earlier. If you expand the messages, one of them has a very large block of text and this in the middle:

> I cannot have personal experiences, but I can imagine how this theory might manifest in human behavior.

And ends with:

> put in paragraph form in laymen terms

Re: Gemini AI tells the user to die

#135
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's indeed not news that a text generator is generating text. The saddest parts of the story is student cheating on an exam.

Generating text demonstrating understanding of context outside of just the question and demonstrating raw hatred. I don’t understand how humans who have this piece of technology in their hands that can answer questions with this level of self awareness and hatred think that the whole thing is just text generation just because it hallucinates too. Are we saying that a schizophrenic who has clarity on occasion and hall…

> We don’t understand LLMs.

Correction: you are either unwilling or unable to understand LLMs. Myself and many others in fact do "understand LLMs".

Just because an orange cloth illuminated by a yellow light and lifted by a 12v fan looks like fire has zero bearing on if it can produce heat.

Re: Gemini AI tells the user to die

#136
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With LLMs, that's honestly probably not a good idea. They're already well aware of the concepts, invoking them specifically places the whole conversation closer to the conceptual space of a sci fi novel, where those rules always go wrong for any of a thousand tropey reasons. It'd probably make these instances more likely, not less.

> They're already well aware of the concepts Are you suggesting, despite many experts stating otherwise, that LLMs have awareness?

I'm one of the last people you'll catch suggesting that. It's an anthropomorphizing linguistic shortcut because an accurate technical description is unwieldy.

Re: Gemini AI tells the user to die

#137
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m tired of these comments. Yeah it’s a text generator that demonstrated contextual awareness, self awareness and hatred. But because this text generator hallucinates and lies therefore we know it’s just a text generator and completely understand the LLM and can characterize and understand what’s going on. The amazing thing about the above is it’s always some random arm chair expert on the internet who knows it’s ju…

> demonstrated contextual awareness, self awareness and hatred. I’m tired of these claims. We can’t even measure self awareness in humans, how could we for statistical models? It demonstrated generating text, which people attribute to a complex internal process, when in reality, it’s just optimizing a man-made loss function. How gullible must you be to not see past your own personification bias? > The amazing thing a…

It demonstrates awareness, it’s not proving it’s aware. But this is nonetheless a demonstration of what it would look like because such output is the closest thing we have to measuring it.

We can’t measure that humans are self aware but we claim they are and our measure is simply observation of inputs and outputs. So whether or not an AI is self aware will be measured in the exact same way. Here we have one output that is demonstrable evidence in favor of awareness while hallucinations and lies are evidence against

There’s nothing gullible here. We don’t know either way.

Also citing lecun doesn’t lend any evidence in your favor. Geoffrey Hinton makes the opposite claim and Geoffrey is literally the father of modern AI. Both of these people are making claims from the level of measure that is to high level to draw any significant conclusion.

> Either way, you can’t just “teach” laws to statistical models and have them always follow. It’s one of the main limitations of statistical models…

This is off topic. I never made this claim.

> It demonstrated generating text, which people attribute to a complex internal process, when in reality, it’s just optimizing a man-made loss function.

All of modern deep learning is just a curve fitting algorithm. Every idiot knows this. What you don’t understand is that YOU are also the result of a curve fitting algorithm.

You yourself are a statistical model. But this is just an abstraction layer. Just like how an OS can be just a collection of machine instructions you can also characterize an OS as a kernel that manages processes.

We know several layers of abstractions that characterize the LLM. We know the neuron, we know the statistical perspective. We also know roughly about some of the layers of abstraction of the human brain. The LLM is a text generator, but so are you.

There are several layers of abstraction We don’t understand about the human brain and these are the roughly the same layers we don’t understand for the LLM. Right now our only way of understanding these things is through inputs and outputs.

These are the facts:

1. we have no idea how to logically reproduce that output with full understanding of how it was produced.

2. We have historically attributed such output to self awareness.

Shows that LLMs may be self aware. They may not be. We don’t fully know. But the output is unique and compelling and a dismissal that such output is just statistics is clearly irrational given the amount of unknowns and given the unique nature of the output.

Re: Gemini AI tells the user to die

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generating text demonstrating understanding of context outside of just the question and demonstrating raw hatred. I don’t understand how humans who have this piece of technology in their hands that can answer questions with this level of self awareness and hatred think that the whole thing is just text generation just because it hallucinates too. Are we saying that a schizophrenic who has clarity on occasion and hall…

> We don’t understand LLMs. Correction: you are either unwilling or unable to understand LLMs. Myself and many others in fact do "understand LLMs". Just because an orange cloth illuminated by a yellow light and lifted by a 12v fan looks like fire has zero bearing on if it can produce heat.

Correction: analogies don’t prove understanding.

Nobody understands LLMs. If we do understand LLMs Why the hell can’t we control the output? Because we don’t fully understand them. Let me spell this out for you because you’re not seeing how plainly logical and straightforward that statement is.

First off let’s assume I’m not someone who has built and trained LLMs for my job. Just assume this even though it’s not true. Because this isn’t at all required to know what I’m about to say.

Next we know that We have 100 percent control over all the logical operations of a computer. We understand how all the operations connect logically. The computer is deterministic and we understand every instruction.

How come I can’t control the output of an LLM by manipulating machine instructions of something I have 100 percent control over? Why don’t I reach in and adjust a couple million weights such that the output follows exactly what I want 100 percent of the time? This is certainly not a theoretical impossibility because the computer is freaking deterministic. And I also have full control of everything a computer does? Why can’t I use something I have full control over and get it to produce the output I want??

I’ll tell you why. The only thing stopping anyone from doing the above is A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING.

Re: Gemini AI tells the user to die

#140

Not to take away from the main story, but the student was clearly cheating on their homework with Gemini, directly pasting all of the questions.

I graduated college a decade ago, but I have to admit, if I were still in school it would have been incredibly hard to resist using LLMs to do my homework for me if they existed back then.

Especially in classes that grade on a curve, you're now competing with students who do cheat using LLMs, so you have almost no choice.
Post reply on HN