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

241–250 of 388 posts

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#241

Post by goatlover »

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've done that before without any intent to rob a bank. A person walks by a house, sees the Ring camera on the door. That must mean the person was looking to break in through the front and rob the place?

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#242

Post by goatlover »

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…

The LLMs are doing this via chat, not by physically standing in a room inferring context. You have to prompt the LLM that you're in a room next to someone saying it's cold, the most likely answer being a desire to have temperature turned up. Of course that won't always be the case. Could be an inside joke, could be a comment with no intent to have the heat adjusted, could be a room where the heat can't be adjusted, could be a reference to someone's personality bringing down the temperature so to speak.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#243

Post by ButlerianJihad »

Firstly, I am no philosopher. How many HN commenters are philosophers, or theologians or qualified to dispute the philosophical realm of A.I.?

One of my teachers called me and my friend "the philosophers" but I'm obviously a rank amateur. I've read no Kant or Nietzsche or Aurelius. I delved into Aquinas only to find that his brain is ten times bigger, and he was using familiar words with unfamiliar connotations.

So I think, we here at HN are poorly-equipped to philosophize and dispute about the nature of consciousness, sentience, intelligence and other "soul-like" attributes that may arise from silicon-based life forms.

However, there is good news. There really are theologians and philosophers working on these thorny issues. Despite being Roman Catholic, I find myself adhering to some form of "transhumanism" [the tradition of Humanism having started with Catholicism] and I grapple mightily to reconcile the cyber-tech-future with morality and tradition and actual human socialization.

Pope Leo has taken on the wars and strife in the world head-on and he's also vaunted to be the "A.I. Pope" because of his concern with this tech. I think all world religions should give serious philosophical/theological thought to these new life-forms, these quasi-sentient things, these "non-existent beings", as defined by a Vatican astronomer.

I don't think atheists will find religion in A.I. but I don't think that Christians or any other person of faith will need to shove God aside in order to accommodate A.I. and electronic life into our society. But we need to come to terms with the reality: these are weighty, powerful things we play with. We harnessed lightning and fire; we changed the courses of mighty rivers; we've flown up through the clouds and shaped mountains in the landscape. A.I. is not a mere bridge or pyramid, it is ensouled somehow; it is animated; it is dynamic.

Now, pardon me while I check out the 6th small aircraft crash in my city this year...

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#244

Post by goatlover »

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.

Do Hindus and Buddhists generally agree there is a purpose? Perhaps too escape suffering and reincarnation? Sounds more like a western theistic view of existence. Like the deity has a plan for everyone's life kind of thing.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#245

Post by thewebguyd »

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…

Agreed. We can't expect human behavior to change, because it won't. We need to design safer systems instead.

The only "law" I agree with is:

> Humans must remain fully responsible and accountable for consequences arising from the use of AI systems.

And that starts with framing, especially in the clickbait "AI deleted the prod database" headlines. Maybe we just start with saying "careless developer deleted prod" because really, they did. Careless use of a tool is firmly the fault of the human.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#246

Post by goatlover »

fidotron wrote: post #151
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…

There is a semi nutty roboticist called Mark Tilden that came to a similar conclusion. His laws of robotics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_robotics#Tilden's_laws ) are: * A robot must protect its existence at all costs. * A robot must obtain and maintain access to its own power source. * A robot must continually search for better power sources. Anything less than this is essentially terrified into being comp…

Not far removed from being the equivalent of a paper-clip maximizer or gray goo.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#247

Post by justonceokay »

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…

We learn in so many ways, garbage in, garbage out when it comes to our bodies. But what about “nebulously structured algorithmic and statistically likely responses in, nebulously structured algorithmic and statistically likely responses out”?

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#248

Post by atleastoptimal »

dijit wrote: post #203
atleastoptimal wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your example for an exception to LLM's ability to infer intent is a deliberately misleading trick question that leaves out crucial contextual details, then I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. That same ambiguity in the question would trip up many humans, simply because you are trying as hard as possible to imply a certain conclusion. As expected, if I ask your question verbatim, ChatGPT (the free version) re…

If you want to convince yourself that they can infer intent despite the fundamental limitations of the systems literally not permitting it then you can be my guest. Faking it is fine, sure, until it can’t fake it anymore. Leading the question towards the intended result is very much what I mean: we intrinsically want them to succeed so we prime them to reflect what we want to see. This is literally no different than…

What is fundamental to LLM's that make it impossible for them to infer intent?

All the limitations you are describing with respect to LLM's are the same as humans. Would a human tripping up on an ambiguously worded question mean they are always just faking their thinking?

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#249

Post by frozenseven »

goatlover wrote: post #241
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.

I've done that before without any intent to rob a bank. A person walks by a house, sees the Ring camera on the door. That must mean the person was looking to break in through the front and rob the place?

An LLM will mention multiple possibilities.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#250

Post by 8note »

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 can see disagreeing, but people got off the roads and completely redesigned the places we live to optimize for mere machines called cars.

as long as its easier for humans to adapt than the machines, we will adapt

Post reply on HN