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

AI didn't delete your database, you did

idiallo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 329 posts

Re: AI didn't delete your database, you did

#111

Post by PessimalDecimal »

jmalicki wrote: post #102
lowbloodsugar wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans aren’t any better. That’s why we have OSHA etc. I think you’re hoping for a formal logic based AI and I’ll wager no such thing will ever exist - and if it do, it would try to kill us all.

Formal logic AI systems have existed and were popular in the 1980s. One of the problems is that they don't work - in the real world there are no firm facts, everything is squishy, and when you try to build a large system you end up making tons of exceptions for special cases until it becomes completely untenable. Non-deterministic systems that work probabilistically are just superior in function to that, even if it m…

I don't know what definition of AI you're using, but plenty of ML algorithms operate deterministically, let alone most other logic programmed into a computer. I don't see how your statement can be right given that these other software systems also operate in the real world.

Re: AI didn't delete your database, you did

#113

Post by CivBase »

paroneayea wrote: post #36

I think the perspective here is completely wrong. The problem is that people are now building our world around tooling that eschews accountability . Over a decade ago now, I had a conversation with Gerald Sussman which had enormous influence on me: https://dustycloud.org/blog/sussman-on-ai/ > At some point Sussman expressed how he thought AI was on the wrong track. He explained that he thought most AI directions were…

> The problem is that people are now building our world around tooling that eschews accountability.

Tools cannot eschew accountability. But the users of the tools can and that is exactly what happened in the PocketOS fiasco.

Just as a company is responsible for the actions of its junior employees, so too are users responsible for their LLMs.

"It is a poor workman who blames his tools."

Re: AI didn't delete your database, you did

#114

Post by patcon »

paroneayea wrote: post #36

I think the perspective here is completely wrong. The problem is that people are now building our world around tooling that eschews accountability . Over a decade ago now, I had a conversation with Gerald Sussman which had enormous influence on me: https://dustycloud.org/blog/sussman-on-ai/ > At some point Sussman expressed how he thought AI was on the wrong track. He explained that he thought most AI directions were…

I wish you could have what you want, but I worry you won't get this, because life doesn't give you that, and these systems are tending away from machine precision, and more toward life-like trade-offs.

I am almost certain that even if you did get what you want, something that isn't what you want will run circles around you and eat your lunch

EDIT: I suspect this will be an unpopular take on Hacker News. And so I am soliciting upvotes for visibility from other biologists and sympathetic technologists. I think everyone should try to grapple with this possibility <3

Re: AI didn't delete your database, you did

#115

Post by kennywinker »

bux93 wrote: post #33
Avicebron wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh? If someone left a loaded gun in a room and then let a toddler run around in it, we would be questioning why the guy 1) left the gun in the room 2) left the toddler in the room unsupervised. We wouldn't be saying, well no one should have toddlers in rooms.

A PhD-level toddler, mind you.

Lol no. No LLM that exists today can write a legible PhD thesis. Nor a masters dissertation. Maybe a first-year collage student, if we’re being generous, but I wouldn’t leave one of those in a room with a loaded gun either.

Re: AI didn't delete your database, you did

#116

Post by BadBadJellyBean »

locknitpicker wrote: post #104
BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My team and I are firm that we are the ones accountable. LLMs are a tool like every other. Only that it's non deterministic. But I am the one using the tool. I am the one giving the tool access. I am the one who has to keep everything safe. I have shot myself in the foot using gparted in the past by wiping the wrong disk. gparted wasn't to blame. I was. Letting LLMs work freely without supervision sounds great but it…

> My team and I are firm that we are the ones accountable. LLMs are a tool like every other. Except it is definitely not. LLMs alone have highly non-deterministic even at a high-level, where they can even pursuit goals contrary to the user's prompts. Then, when introduced in ReAct-type loops and granted capabilities such as the ability to call tools then they are able to modify anything and perform all sorts of unexp…

Then that is also on me for using a tool that I can't control. I don't run my LLMs in a way where they can just do things without me signing off on it. It's not nearly as fast as just letting it do it's thing but I kept it from doing stupid things so many times.

Giving up control is a decision. The consequences of this decision are mine to carry. I can do my best to keep autonomous LLMs contained and safe but if I am the one who deploys them, then I am the one who is to blame if it fails.

That's why I don't do that.

Re: AI didn't delete your database, you did

#117

Post by thuuuomas »

patcon wrote: post #114
paroneayea wrote: post #36

I think the perspective here is completely wrong. The problem is that people are now building our world around tooling that eschews accountability . Over a decade ago now, I had a conversation with Gerald Sussman which had enormous influence on me: https://dustycloud.org/blog/sussman-on-ai/ > At some point Sussman expressed how he thought AI was on the wrong track. He explained that he thought most AI directions were…

I wish you could have what you want, but I worry you won't get this, because life doesn't give you that, and these systems are tending away from machine precision, and more toward life-like trade-offs. I am almost certain that even if you did get what you want, something that isn't what you want will run circles around you and eat your lunch EDIT: I suspect this will be an unpopular take on Hacker News. And so I am s…

> I think you won’t get [cathedral],..

> even if you do get [cathedral], [bazar] will run circles around you…

Re: AI didn't delete your database, you did

#118

Post by wolttam »

recursive wrote: post #24
wolttam wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a saw is a mistake, you might cut off one of your own limbs.

Using a saw entails a risk of injury. Using one is a mistake if you don't intend to cut something.

What I said was tongue-firmly-in-cheek, in response to the GP. "Using AI is a mistake" is of course only true when the risks aren't acknowledged and/or mitigated.

Re: AI didn't delete your database, you did

#119

Post by pjc50 »

paroneayea wrote: post #36

I think the perspective here is completely wrong. The problem is that people are now building our world around tooling that eschews accountability . Over a decade ago now, I had a conversation with Gerald Sussman which had enormous influence on me: https://dustycloud.org/blog/sussman-on-ai/ > At some point Sussman expressed how he thought AI was on the wrong track. He explained that he thought most AI directions were…

Have I got a book for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unaccountability_Machine

Not actually about technology at all, but about organizational structure.

Re: AI didn't delete your database, you did

#120

Post by yubblegum »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #64
paroneayea wrote: post #36

I think the perspective here is completely wrong. The problem is that people are now building our world around tooling that eschews accountability . Over a decade ago now, I had a conversation with Gerald Sussman which had enormous influence on me: https://dustycloud.org/blog/sussman-on-ai/ > At some point Sussman expressed how he thought AI was on the wrong track. He explained that he thought most AI directions were…

Humans aren’t any better. That’s why we have OSHA etc. I think you’re hoping for a formal logic based AI and I’ll wager no such thing will ever exist - and if it do, it would try to kill us all.

> Humans aren’t any better

We're different.

People have fairly consistent faults. LLMs are nondeterministic even in terms of how they fail. A high value human resource can be counted on to deliver. That, imho, is in fact one of the primary roles of good management: putting the right person in the appropriate position.

Process engineering has worked to date because both the human and mechanical components of a system fail in predictable ways and we can try to remedy that. This is the golden bug of the current crop of "AI".

Post reply on HN