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

381–388 of 388 posts

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#381

Post by classified »

dev_hugepages wrote: post #332
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…

The problem is that humans use this as a coping mechanism for things they don't understand: I don't understand why the printer doesn't work, so I give it a mind of its own. This is harmless for inconsequential stuff like a chair, but when it's an LLM, people should at least understand it's behavior so they don't get trapped. That means not trusting it with advice meant for the user or on things it has no concept of,…

> You're right, I deleted the database.

Instead of saying, "You gave me the access permissions and failed to add any guardrails, so effectively you deleted the database using me as the tool."

But your typical LLM doesn't even have enough grasp to say that. Which still doesn't stop the believers from insisting that it has genuine intelligence and consciousness.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#382

Post by H8crilA »

pixl97 wrote: post #378
H8crilA wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually more like one of these personality disorders / types, except it's not pathological - it's not something you choose, yet you do have one of the versions of the trait and it affects your daily life. And most people are completely unaware that it is possible to have a completely different version, that most people they meet are on a different spot on the spectrum and thus have a quite different internal…

>For example I have never anthropomorphized an inanimate object in my life, By saying stuff like this people are going to have a debate if autistic people are actually conscious or not.

Object personification is actually common in autism:

> Object personification in autism: This paper will be very sad if you don’t read it - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1362361318793408

Common, not universal, as those are different dimensions.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#383

Post by stronglikedan »

jgeada wrote: post #146

Any set of rules that makes humans responsible and starts with "don't anthropomorphize " is a broken set of rules. Humans will anthropomorphize anything and everything . Dolls, soccer balls with a crude drawing of a face on it, rocks, craters on the moon, … As a species, we're unable to not anthropomorphize things we interact with, it is just how're we're made.

People don't fall in love with rocks unless they're objectophiliacs, but even people who aren't objectophiliacs fall in love with AIs. All of that to say, there are different levels of anthropomorphization.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#384

Post by grantcas »

karolusrex wrote: post #318
matheusmoreira wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they have the same conscious experiences You cannot be sure that anyone other than yourself is conscious. It is only basic human empathy that allows people to believe that.

If a person would lack consciousness, they couldn’t possibly know that though?

[dead]

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#385

Post by Mithriil »

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…

> 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.

A statistical approximation of logical inference (as vague as I state it) could (and will) very well pass for logical inference, at least for the common people, whose logic skills are far from perfect.

Also, humans are certainly not capable of the perfect logical inference you speak of. And I get the irony of what I'm saying with such certitude. Logic is still framed in axioms that are framed in languages, we'll never truly get there. Ah, but absoluteness gets in the way of practicality.

Yet, here we are with a tool, that is maybe not at its prime yet, that equals and beat many human beings at logical inference on some problems that are pragmatically relevant. Should I say symptoms of logical inference at that point?

As to why LLMs capacity for (apparent) logical inference is only limited to specific use cases, I don't have a clue. But I'd like to argue that, humans are like that too.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#387

Post by marliechiller »

mikestorrent wrote: post #307
onion2k wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We suffocate them to kill them when we pull them from the sea. That's quite mean. Few people would advocate the humanity of killing a cow in the same way.

Fair enough. How much more would it cost / how much more would one have to pay for humanely slaughtered tuna and salmon, I wonder? Would there be a market? After all, we have certified-organic, fair trade, halal and kosher....

Just to call out - halal and kosher are _less_ humane than simply killing an animal in the usual industrial way
Post reply on HN