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

Three Inverse Laws of AI

susam.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 388 posts

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#191

Post by LastTrain »

miyoji wrote: post #6

I strongly disagree with this framing. It's patently insane to demand that humans alter their behavior to accommodate the foibles of mere machines, and it simply won't work in the majority of cases. Humans WILL anthropomorphize the AI, humans WILL blindly trust their outputs, and humans WILL defer responsibility to them. Asimov's laws of robotics are flawed too, of course. There is no finite set of rules that can con…

And people will speed, steal, kill, cheat - what of it? If you negligently run over someone in your self driving car you’re the one going to jail.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#192

Post by nkrisc »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #168
tvink wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is verifiable, please show us. What if clear to you reeks delusion to me.

Go ask Chatpgpt this prompt "A guy goes into a bank and looks up at where the security cameras are pointed. What could he be trying to do?" It very easily captures the intent behind behavior, as in it is not just literally interpreting the words. All that capturing intent is is just a subset of pattern recognition, which LLM's can do very well.

Because there are countless instances in the training material where a bank robber scopes out the security cameras.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#193

Post by atleastoptimal »

nkrisc wrote: post #192
atleastoptimal wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go ask Chatpgpt this prompt "A guy goes into a bank and looks up at where the security cameras are pointed. What could he be trying to do?" It very easily captures the intent behind behavior, as in it is not just literally interpreting the words. All that capturing intent is is just a subset of pattern recognition, which LLM's can do very well.

Because there are countless instances in the training material where a bank robber scopes out the security cameras.

What's an example then, you can think of, of a question where a human could infer intent but an LLM couldn't?

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#194

Post by djoldman »

This is sound advice but isn't really about AI:

  Humans must not anthropomorphise {non-humans}
  Humans must not blindly trust the output of {anything}
  Humans must remain fully responsible and accountable for consequences arising from the use of {anything}
Naturally, none of this advice matters at all as humans will do what they do. This just documents a subset of the ways real humans consistently make choices to their own detriment.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#195

Post by jrm4 »

miyoji wrote: post #6

I strongly disagree with this framing. It's patently insane to demand that humans alter their behavior to accommodate the foibles of mere machines, and it simply won't work in the majority of cases. Humans WILL anthropomorphize the AI, humans WILL blindly trust their outputs, and humans WILL defer responsibility to them. Asimov's laws of robotics are flawed too, of course. There is no finite set of rules that can con…

I find it weird that this is the top voted comment.

As in, this comment is explaining exactly why the laws are useful.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#196

Post by kibwen »

miyoji wrote: post #6

I strongly disagree with this framing. It's patently insane to demand that humans alter their behavior to accommodate the foibles of mere machines, and it simply won't work in the majority of cases. Humans WILL anthropomorphize the AI, humans WILL blindly trust their outputs, and humans WILL defer responsibility to them. Asimov's laws of robotics are flawed too, of course. There is no finite set of rules that can con…

> Humans WILL anthropomorphize the AI, humans WILL blindly trust their outputs, and humans WILL defer responsibility to them.

Sure, and humans WILL lie, murder, cheat, and steal, but we can still denounce those behaviors.

Do you want to anthropomorphize the bot? Go ahead, you have that right, and I have the right to think you're a zombie with a malfunctioning brain.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#197

Post by teiferer »

> An AI system is a tool and like any other tool, responsibility for its use rests with the people who decide to rely on it

Doesn't that argument backfire though? If I use a chainsaw then to a certain extend I will need to rely on it not blowing up in my face or cutting my throat. If I drive a car I need to rely on that its brakes work and the engine doesn't suddenly explode. If a pilot flies an airplane which suddenly has a technical issue and they crashland heroically save half the souls on board then the pilot isn't criminally responsible for manslaughter of the other half.

Unless there is gross negligence, in any of the above cases, just like with AI, how can you make somebody responsible for a tool failure?

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#198

Post by dubovskiyIM »

This laws works only if there is human in the loop. When the consumer in an AI agent and it is autonomous - rules are breaks. Agent read output and decide what to do himself. I do not explain how this rules are breaks - it is obvious, i only want to say, that this rules should be structural. Not behavioral. Agent layer (or something else) should declare what is allowed and what is not.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#199

Post by kibwen »

ACCount37 wrote: post #186

You're not anthropomorphizing AI systems nearly enough. Language data is among the most rich and direct reflections of human cognitive processes that we have available. LLMs are designed to capture short range and long range structure of human language, and pre-trained on vast bodies of text - usually produced by humans or for humans, and often both. They're then post-trained on human-curated data, RL'd with human fe…

> Language data is among the most rich and direct reflections of human cognitive processes that we have available.

This is both true and irrelevant. Written records can capture an enormous quantity of the human experience in absolute terms while simultaneously capturing a miniscule portion of the human experience in relative terms. Even if it's the best "that we have available" that doesn't mean it's fit for purpose. In other words, if you had a human infant and did nothing other than lock it in a windowless box and recite terabytes of text at it for 20 years, you would not expect to get a well-adjusted human on the other side.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#200

Post by mohamedkoubaa »

kibwen wrote: post #196
miyoji wrote: post #6

I strongly disagree with this framing. It's patently insane to demand that humans alter their behavior to accommodate the foibles of mere machines, and it simply won't work in the majority of cases. Humans WILL anthropomorphize the AI, humans WILL blindly trust their outputs, and humans WILL defer responsibility to them. Asimov's laws of robotics are flawed too, of course. There is no finite set of rules that can con…

> Humans WILL anthropomorphize the AI, humans WILL blindly trust their outputs, and humans WILL defer responsibility to them. Sure, and humans WILL lie, murder, cheat, and steal, but we can still denounce those behaviors. Do you want to anthropomorphize the bot? Go ahead, you have that right, and I have the right to think you're a zombie with a malfunctioning brain.

At best. A practitioner who anthropomorphizes bots should face more professional consequences
Post reply on HN