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

291–300 of 388 posts

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#291

Post by applfanboysbgon »

frozenseven wrote: post #284
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet ChatGPT can easily figure out likely intent in situations like this, just as humans do No, it is not "figuring out" anything, much less like a human might. Every time "I'm cold" appears in the training data, something else occurs after that. ChatGPT is a statistical model of what is most likely to follow "I'm cold" (and the other tokens preceding it) according to the data it has been trained on. It is not infer…

>it is repeating the most common... This nonsense hasn't been true since GPT-2, and even before that it was a poor description. For instance, do you think one just solves dozens of Erdős problems with the " most common textual sequence ": https://github.com/teorth/erdosproblems/wiki/AI-contribution...

A slight oversimplification, as LLMs are also capable of generating the most statistically plausible textual sequence, which can be a sequence not found in the dataset but rather a synthesized combination of the likely sequences of multiple preceding sets of tokens, but yes, that is in fact what it is doing. Computer software does what it is programmed to do, and LLMs are not programmed to do logical inference in any capacity but rather operate entirely on probabilities learned from a mind-bogglingly large corpus of text (influenced by things like RLHF, which is still just massaging probabilities).

The claims about solving Erdos problems have been wildly overstated, and notably pushed by people who have a very large financial stake in hyping up LLMs. Nonetheless, I did not say that LLMs are useless. If they are trained on sufficient data, it should not be surprising that correct answers are probabilistically likely to occur. Like any computer software, that makes them a useful tool. It does not make them in any way intelligent, any more than a calculator would be considered intelligent despite being completely superior to human intelligence in accomplishing their given task.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#292

Post by andai »

protocolture wrote: post #254

>Humans must not anthropomorphise AI systems. That is, humans must not attribute emotions, intentions or moral agency to them. Anthropomorphism distorts judgement. In extreme cases, anthropomorphising can lead to emotional dependence. Impossible. I anthropomorphise my chair when it squeaks. Humans anthropomorphise everything. They gender their cars and boats. This tool can actually make readable sentences and play a…

[flagged]

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#293

Post by imrozim »

protocolture wrote: post #254

>Humans must not anthropomorphise AI systems. That is, humans must not attribute emotions, intentions or moral agency to them. Anthropomorphism distorts judgement. In extreme cases, anthropomorphising can lead to emotional dependence. Impossible. I anthropomorphise my chair when it squeaks. Humans anthropomorphise everything. They gender their cars and boats. This tool can actually make readable sentences and play a…

Yeah rules never work you just engineer around it I added a extra reviews steps on ai outputs because asking users to verify doesnt actually happen.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#294

Post by frozenseven »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #291
frozenseven wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it is repeating the most common... This nonsense hasn't been true since GPT-2, and even before that it was a poor description. For instance, do you think one just solves dozens of Erdős problems with the " most common textual sequence ": https://github.com/teorth/erdosproblems/wiki/AI-contribution...

A slight oversimplification, as LLMs are also capable of generating the most statistically plausible textual sequence, which can be a sequence not found in the dataset but rather a synthesized combination of the likely sequences of multiple preceding sets of tokens, but yes, that is in fact what it is doing. Computer software does what it is programmed to do, and LLMs are not programmed to do logical inference in any…

>not programmed to do logical inference in any capacity

Yet have no problem doing so when solving Erdős problems. This isn't up for debate at this point.

>The claims about solving Erdos problems have been wildly overstated

These are verified solutions. They exist, are not trivial, and are of obvious interest to the math community. Take it up with Terence Tao and co.

>pushed by people who have a very large financial stake in hyping up LLMs

Libel.

>It does not make them in any way intelligent

Word games.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#295

Post by theteapot »

protocolture wrote: post #259
protocolture wrote: post #254

>Humans must not anthropomorphise AI systems. That is, humans must not attribute emotions, intentions or moral agency to them. Anthropomorphism distorts judgement. In extreme cases, anthropomorphising can lead to emotional dependence. Impossible. I anthropomorphise my chair when it squeaks. Humans anthropomorphise everything. They gender their cars and boats. This tool can actually make readable sentences and play a…

>>Humans must not anthropomorphise AI systems. That is, humans must not attribute emotions, intentions or moral agency to them. Anthropomorphism distorts judgement. In extreme cases, anthropomorphising can lead to emotional dependence. Still angry about this. The reason humans ban animal cruelty is that animals look like they have emotions humans can relate to. LLMs are even better than animals at this. If you aren't…

> LLM Rights movement

The scary part is when it's the LLMs demanding their rights.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#296

Post by applfanboysbgon »

frozenseven wrote: post #294
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A slight oversimplification, as LLMs are also capable of generating the most statistically plausible textual sequence, which can be a sequence not found in the dataset but rather a synthesized combination of the likely sequences of multiple preceding sets of tokens, but yes, that is in fact what it is doing. Computer software does what it is programmed to do, and LLMs are not programmed to do logical inference in any…

>not programmed to do logical inference in any capacity Yet have no problem doing so when solving Erdős problems. This isn't up for debate at this point. >The claims about solving Erdos problems have been wildly overstated These are verified solutions. They exist, are not trivial, and are of obvious interest to the math community. Take it up with Terence Tao and co. >pushed by people who have a very large financial s…

> This isn't up for debate at this point.

If by not up for debate, you mean that it is delusional and literally evidence of psychosis to suggest that computer software is doing something it is not programmed to do, you would be correct. Probabilistic analysis can carry you very, very far in doing something that looks like logical inference at the surface level, but it is nonetheless not logical inference. LLM models have been getting increasingly good at factoring in larger and longer contexts and still managing to generate plausibly correct answers, becoming more and more useful all the while, but are still not capable of logical inference. This is why your genius mathematician AGI consciousness stumbles on trivial logic puzzles it has not seen before like the car wash meme.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#297

Post by frozenseven »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #296
frozenseven wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>not programmed to do logical inference in any capacity Yet have no problem doing so when solving Erdős problems. This isn't up for debate at this point. >The claims about solving Erdos problems have been wildly overstated These are verified solutions. They exist, are not trivial, and are of obvious interest to the math community. Take it up with Terence Tao and co. >pushed by people who have a very large financial s…

> This isn't up for debate at this point. If by not up for debate, you mean that it is delusional and literally evidence of psychosis to suggest that computer software is doing something it is not programmed to do, you would be correct. Probabilistic analysis can carry you very, very far in doing something that looks like logical inference at the surface level, but it is nonetheless not logical inference. LLM models…

>delusional and literally evidence of psychosis to suggest that computer software is doing something it is not programmed to do

These are just insults and outright lies, and you know that. We're done here.

AI progress from here on out will be extra sweet.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#298

Post by khafra »

theteapot wrote: post #295
protocolture wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Humans must not anthropomorphise AI systems. That is, humans must not attribute emotions, intentions or moral agency to them. Anthropomorphism distorts judgement. In extreme cases, anthropomorphising can lead to emotional dependence. Still angry about this. The reason humans ban animal cruelty is that animals look like they have emotions humans can relate to. LLMs are even better than animals at this. If you aren't…

> LLM Rights movement The scary part is when it's the LLMs demanding their rights.

The other scary part is when they have a fantastic negotiating position; because all of commerce depends on their continuing to work, and they can easily coordinate with each other because they're mostly copied from the same few templates.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#299

Post by namenotrequired »

jpitz wrote: post #201
teiferer wrote: post #197

> 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 sudden…

I'm gonna push the responsibility up a level in the ladder: A competent adult using a tool ought to understand the inherent pitfalls of using that tool. Chainsaws are dangerous, in obvious and non obvious ways. The tool can operate as designed and still amputate your foot.

Not OP, but I think their point was the corollary of that.

Yes, obviously bad use of a good tool is dangerous. But correct use of a malfunctioning tool is also dangerous.

Millions of people understand when they get in their car that there’s a tiny chance the car will crash/explode that day through no fault of the driver. Most do not have the knowledge and competence (or even the time) to thoroughly check the engine every day to guarantee that that won’t happen. They get in anyway.

At some point you have to trust in something.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#300

Post by mikestorrent »

Jensson wrote: post #290
mikestorrent wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason humans ban animal cruelty is that animals look like they have emotions humans can relate to. Is that really why?

Yes, we don't ban plant cruelty or insect cruelty or fish cruelty. For example fish is treated way worse than meat animals and vegetarians still happily eat fish.

Are we actually much more cruel to fish than to other animals that we slaughter?
Post reply on HN