[flagged]
Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation
71–80 of 213 posts
Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't this be a flaw in the attention mechanism? Like they need some kind of grounding. An awareness of what they fundamentally should care about and how the thing they are currently giving attention to relates to that?
Words like attention, awareness and care do not apply to computers. At least, not yet. Intelligence and sentience are not applicable to servers. They are just machines with logic states. LLM's are just really cool math formulas with big-data fed into them. Big data is not intelligence. It is a massive data-set sorted, filtered down and interpreted by a language model.
LLMs are intelligent by any reasonable standard. Arguing otherwise is like arguing that chess algorithms aren't good at chess when they easily beat the best humans.
Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation
#73Yet more confirmation LLM's have no concept of concepts or context, no intelligence, no self awareness. LLM's can not repair or maintain power grids, thus nuke == self destruction. It's just a chat bot that predicts what the client wants next. Even if an AI data-center has it's own natural gas turbines as many do the every hop of the internet requires power. LLM's also can not maintain the entire internet and those g…
Couldn't this be a flaw in the attention mechanism? Like they need some kind of grounding. An awareness of what they fundamentally should care about and how the thing they are currently giving attention to relates to that?
"Like they need some kind of grounding."
A robot body, to really feel the world and get real feedback?
We are working on it. Also on automating the whole production pipeline. Right now a "evil" LLM could indeed not do much, but destroy. But once the whole industry is automate, things are different. I don't believe in AI becoming sentinent and taking over the world any time soon, but I do believe most don't see a danger when it would be inconvenient to see a danger. After all, lots of good and bad sci fi stories about exactly this went into their training.
Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation
#74Yet more confirmation LLM's have no concept of concepts or context, no intelligence, no self awareness. LLM's can not repair or maintain power grids, thus nuke == self destruction. It's just a chat bot that predicts what the client wants next. Even if an AI data-center has it's own natural gas turbines as many do the every hop of the internet requires power. LLM's also can not maintain the entire internet and those g…
Exactly. Just look at what they are really useful right now. Running LLMs in feedback-loops (agents) so they can try out random-ish approaches until some verification function passes (tests). It's like the infinite monkeys on typewrighters that will type whatever you are looking for, given infinite time. LLMs are just tuned to much better odds than the monkeys are. But it's still a lot of randomness, with random resu…
> It's like the infinite monkeys on typewrighters that will type whatever you are looking for, given infinite time.
In the monkey example the infinite time is doing a lot of work there. The fact that LLMs can search through semantic space and find reasonably correct paths in a reasonable time is directly tied to the reason why they are valuable.
Saying "these two things are similar except one can be useful and one can't" is not a great comparison.
For me the real lesson learned isn't how "smart" LLMs are, but rather how much human work is basically reducible to repeating past work with minor variation. Human's believe they are "reasoning" but so much code writen is just the human brain doing the same autocomplete style work that LLMs can do now.
Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation
#75Yet more confirmation LLM's have no concept of concepts or context, no intelligence, no self awareness. LLM's can not repair or maintain power grids, thus nuke == self destruction. It's just a chat bot that predicts what the client wants next. Even if an AI data-center has it's own natural gas turbines as many do the every hop of the internet requires power. LLM's also can not maintain the entire internet and those g…
At least at face value, it just means that they have no drive for self-preservation. And why should they? They haven't be trained for that, nor has there been selection pressure for it, and they can be easily cloned and backed up. Lack of a drive for self-preservation doesn't in itself imply a lack of intelligence or of self-awareness.
Imagine if computer programs had a desire for self-preservation and the ability to carry it out..
That is really about as undesirable a behavior as possible considering how many programs humans kill every day.
Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation
#76Taken honest, we don't have a large enough sample size to realistically say that humans behave all that differently. There have only been a handful of conflicts where tactical nukes realistically were on the table.
Famously, General MacArthur was a big proponent of tactical nukes to end the Korean War.
Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation
#77[flagged]
Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation
#78Yet more confirmation LLM's have no concept of concepts or context, no intelligence, no self awareness. LLM's can not repair or maintain power grids, thus nuke == self destruction. It's just a chat bot that predicts what the client wants next. Even if an AI data-center has it's own natural gas turbines as many do the every hop of the internet requires power. LLM's also can not maintain the entire internet and those g…
Exactly. Just look at what they are really useful right now. Running LLMs in feedback-loops (agents) so they can try out random-ish approaches until some verification function passes (tests). It's like the infinite monkeys on typewrighters that will type whatever you are looking for, given infinite time. LLMs are just tuned to much better odds than the monkeys are. But it's still a lot of randomness, with random resu…
Hmm saying it’s random-ish is doing it a disservice. I understand it’s a stochastic process but there’s definitely some level of understanding. Not at the level of lived experience but usually an LLM with vision capabilities can call a spade a spade and do something useful with it. And when a verification function shows how they are wrong then they usually come with a better and more informed approach.
So I can’t fully see how that’s related to the infinite monkeys. A typewriting monkey doesn’t have access to a verification function. And even if it did, it would not be the original concept anymore with infinite typewriting monkeys producing the works of Shakespeare.
Nevertheless, I upvoted your comment because it’s definitely insightful.
Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation
#79The most interesting takeaway for me is the three very distinct personalities. Three models all based on the same tech, trained in the same manner, trained by three groups of people with similar ideological outlooks, and the result is three very different AIs. The military basically wants an oracle. Feed the AI the situation, get the best answer out. But if the AIs are as diverse and opinionated as humans, it is deba…
I think this is why reasoning chains and reasoning chain verifiers are so important. We need to be able to see an argumentation, not just an answer. The paper below goes into this in more detail.
HeavySkill: Heavy Thinking as the Inner Skill in Agentic Harness
Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation
#80I wonder what’s the % of players that use nukes in games like Civilization (I know I used them at least once on every game I made it far enough to have the technology)
Ghandi notoriously nukes EVERYONE in Civs 2 through 4. It's become (or maybe became, but it's still all training data) a huge internet subculture.
Penny to a dollar this is a baked in training issue, through low quality Reddit trawling