Three Inverse Laws of AI • Hacker News Board

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#221

Post by nevertoolate » Tue, May 05, 2026, 9:43 PM UTC

canjobear wrote: post #209

dijit wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Asimov's laws of robotics are flawed too, of course. Almost all of Asimovs writing about the three laws is written as a warning of sorts that language cannot properly capture intent. He would be the very first person to say that they are flawed, that is the intent of them. He uses robots and AI as the creatures that understand language but not intent, and, funnily enough that's exactly what LLMs do... how weird.

I think you're vastly underestimating how little of human intent is really encoded in language in a strict sense, and how much nontrivial inference of intents LLMs do every day with simple queries. This used to be an apparently insurmountable barrier in pre-LLM NLP, and now it is just not a problem. Suppose I'm in a cold room, you're standing next to a heater, and I say "it's cold". Obviously my intent is that I want…

it’s cold -> turn on the heater

I’d never just turn on the heater silently if someone said this to me. I think it means something else.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#222

Post by TimTheTinker » Tue, May 05, 2026, 9:45 PM UTC

jplusequalt wrote: post #171

TimTheTinker wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reject the premise that the universe, the earth, and human existence is without purpose. It's one premise among several, and not one I subscribe to. At least 80% of people agree with me, so I'm not holding to a fringe idea.

>At least 80% of people agree with me, so I'm not holding to a fringe idea. Appeal to majority much?

Not intended as anything more than "I'm not a crank to say that, unless you think most people (now and in history) are cranks"

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#223

Post by hackable_sand » Tue, May 05, 2026, 9:46 PM UTC

nevertoolate wrote: post #221

canjobear wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're vastly underestimating how little of human intent is really encoded in language in a strict sense, and how much nontrivial inference of intents LLMs do every day with simple queries. This used to be an apparently insurmountable barrier in pre-LLM NLP, and now it is just not a problem. Suppose I'm in a cold room, you're standing next to a heater, and I say "it's cold". Obviously my intent is that I want…

it’s cold -> turn on the heater I’d never just turn on the heater silently if someone said this to me. I think it means something else.

If someone just said "it's cold" then yeah that's kinda toxic.

If they said "turn on the heater" then you have no ambiguity

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#224

Post by quibono » Tue, May 05, 2026, 9:47 PM UTC

canjobear wrote: post #209

dijit wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Asimov's laws of robotics are flawed too, of course. Almost all of Asimovs writing about the three laws is written as a warning of sorts that language cannot properly capture intent. He would be the very first person to say that they are flawed, that is the intent of them. He uses robots and AI as the creatures that understand language but not intent, and, funnily enough that's exactly what LLMs do... how weird.

I think you're vastly underestimating how little of human intent is really encoded in language in a strict sense, and how much nontrivial inference of intents LLMs do every day with simple queries. This used to be an apparently insurmountable barrier in pre-LLM NLP, and now it is just not a problem. Suppose I'm in a cold room, you're standing next to a heater, and I say "it's cold". Obviously my intent is that I want…

I know what you're getting at but those examples are reaching

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#225

Post by lovich » Tue, May 05, 2026, 9:47 PM UTC

jplusequalt wrote: post #171

TimTheTinker wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reject the premise that the universe, the earth, and human existence is without purpose. It's one premise among several, and not one I subscribe to. At least 80% of people agree with me, so I'm not holding to a fringe idea.

>At least 80% of people agree with me, so I'm not holding to a fringe idea. Appeal to majority much?

Is it even true? I assume he’s referring to religion but I thought the irreligious population of the planet had broken 20% between China already and the West becoming increasingly agnostic/athiestic.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#226

Post by gwbas1c » Tue, May 05, 2026, 9:53 PM UTC

> I wish that each such generative AI service came with a brief but conspicuous warning explaining that these systems can sometimes produce output that is factually incorrect, misleading or incomplete.

Guess what?

Books in the library can be wrong, even peer-reviewed encyclopedias.

Pages on the internet can be wrong, even Wikipedia.

When accuracy is important, you must look at multiple sources. I think AI will get better at providing accurate information, but only a fool relies on a single information source for critical decisions.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#227

Post by ozozozd » Tue, May 05, 2026, 9:54 PM UTC

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.

I guess the _obvious_ intent is they’re planning a heist? Because the following things never happen: - a security auditor checking for camera blind spots, - construction planning that requires understanding where there is power, - a potential customer assessing the security of a bank, - someone who is about to report an incident preparing to make the “it should be visible from the security camera” argument…

I mean… how did our imagination shrink so fast? I wrote this on my phone. These alternate scenarios just popped into my head.

And I bet our imagination didn’t shrink. The AI pilled state of mind is blocking us from using it.

If you are an engineer and stopped looking for alternative explanations or failure scenarios, you’re abdicating your responsibility btw.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#228

Post by vhantz » Tue, May 05, 2026, 9:57 PM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #226

> I wish that each such generative AI service came with a brief but conspicuous warning explaining that these systems can sometimes produce output that is factually incorrect, misleading or incomplete. Guess what? Books in the library can be wrong, even peer-reviewed encyclopedias. Pages on the internet can be wrong, even Wikipedia. When accuracy is important, you must look at multiple sources. I think AI will get be…

Yes LLM text prediction and peer-reviewed encyclopedias are the same. Good on you throwing internet pages in there too, that brings balance or something

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#229

Post by moffkalast » Tue, May 05, 2026, 9:57 PM UTC

TimTheTinker wrote: post #129

semiquaver wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That uncanny valley is there for a reason: to protect us from inferring agency You’re committing a much older but related sin here: assigning agency and motivation to evolutionary processes. The uncanny valley is the product of evolution and thus by definition it has no “purpose”

I reject the premise that the universe, the earth, and human existence is without purpose. It's one premise among several, and not one I subscribe to. At least 80% of people agree with me, so I'm not holding to a fringe idea.

Well yes because just like your earlier point, we can't help but anthropomorphise the world around us.

Just like we see a person in an LLM, it's easy to assume that because we create things with a purpose, that the world around us also has to be that way. But it's just as wrong and arguably far more dangerous.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#230

Post by jiggawatts » Tue, May 05, 2026, 10:00 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #176

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.

Recognising a stock cultural script isn't the same as capturing intent. Ask it something where no script exists. For example: "A man thrusts past me violently and grabs the jacket I was holding, he jumped into a pool and ruined it. Am I morally right in suing him?" There's no way for the LLM to know that the reason the jacket was stolen was to use it as an inflatable raft to support a larger person who was drowning.…

That statement is ambiguous for humans!!

I didn’t realise you might be describing an emergency situation until someone else pointed it out.

Most people wouldn’t phrase the question with the word “violently” if the situation was an emergency.

Also, people have sued emergency workers and good samaritans. It’s a problem!