Three Inverse Laws of AI

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 05, 2026, 10:01 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…

Post by moffkalast » Tue, May 05, 2026, 10:02 PM UTC

chairmansteve wrote: post #126

devmor wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually one of the things that made LLMs more usable for me. The default tone and style of writing they tend to use is nauseatingly annoying and buries information in prose that sounds like a corporate presentation.

In chatgpt, I start every session with "Caveman mode:". Works at the moment.

Post by poszlem » Tue, May 05, 2026, 10:04 PM UTC

davebranton wrote: post #232

This phrase always fascinates me : "AI-generated content must not be treated as authoritative without independent verification appropriate to its context." I've heard the same thing expressed somewhat more concisely as "Never ask AI a question to which you don't already know the answer". Which raises the question, and I do think it's an important one. Given that this is true, what function does AI answering a questio…

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

heikkilevanto wrote: post #210

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…

> It's patently insane to demand that humans alter their behavior to accommodate the foibles of mere machines You mean like stopping at a red light?

Post by ButlerianJihad » Tue, May 05, 2026, 10:12 PM UTC

IAmBroom wrote: post #154

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know it's just sugar, That is not the definition of a placebo. You take the placebo (whatever it is: could be a pill; could be some kind of task or routine) and you believe it is medicine; you believe it to be therapeutic. The placebo effect comes from your faith, your belief, and your anticipation that it will heal. If the pharmacist hands you a pill and says, “here, this placebo is sugar!” they have destroyed…

One, a placebo does not need to be given blindly. A sugar pill is a placebo, even if the recipient knows about it. An actual definition: "A placebo is an inactive substance (like a sugar pill) or procedure (like sham surgery) with no intrinsic therapeutic value, designed to look identical to real treatment." No mention of the user's belief. Two, real hard data proves that the placebo effect remains (albeit reduced) e…

  In psychology, the two main hypotheses of the placebo effect are expectancy theory and classical conditioning.[70]

  In 1985, Irving Kirsch hypothesized that placebo effects are produced by the self-fulfilling effects of response expectancies, in which the belief that one will feel different leads a person to actually feel different.[71] According to this theory, the belief that one has received an active treatment can produce the subjective changes thought to be produced by the real treatment. Similarly, the appearance of effect can result from classical conditioning, wherein a placebo and an actual stimulus are used simultaneously until the placebo is associated with the effect from the actual stimulus.[72] Both conditioning and expectations play a role in placebo effect,[70] and make different kinds of contributions. Conditioning has a longer-lasting effect,[73] and can affect earlier stages of information processing.[74] Those who think a treatment will work display a stronger placebo effect than those who do not, as evidenced by a study of acupuncture.[75]