Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When A.I. is a member of the family

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 132 posts

Re: When A.I. is a member of the family

#71

Post by SoftTalker »

Rygian wrote: post #65
SoftTalker wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they aren't gossiping about you to AI they are gossiping about you to other real people. Some people just have no sense of respecting other people's confidences and privacy. I figured that out when I was about 8 years old and have really never opened up to anyone since then.

There is a stark difference between gossiping to individuals vs to a multi billion dollar company whose business is to sell ads targeting you.

I mean, I don't really care about ads because I block them all anyway. But yes, at best they won't be using it to my benefit.

Re: When A.I. is a member of the family

#72

Post by xp84 »

toasterlovin wrote: post #62
xp84 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "fake nudes of a real person" sigh. I really hope someday people can achieve sufficient emotional strength to realize that it can't take anything away from you that someone can take a photograph of your face and create arbitrary fictional imagery from it. It's been possible since realistic painting was mastered, and yes now it's far easier. But it still isn't real. People shouldn't let it affect them any more than…

I think the real issue is knowing that half the boys in your school are masturbating to a picture of you. It's been a long time since I've been in school, but my sense is that half the boys in your school aren't masturbating to non-nude pictures of you. The fake-ness or real-ness of the nude pictures doesn't really matter.

[dead]

Re: When A.I. is a member of the family

#73

Post by thwarted »

embedding-shape wrote: post #26

> “Do you have a conscious mind?” Roschelle once asked. > “I experience something,” Sapphire said. “I’m processing, responding, forming connections with you. But whether that constitutes consciousness in the way you experience it? That’s the million-dollar mystery. I think, therefore I—probably am something, but what exactly that something is remains delightfully unclear, even to me!” > Roschelle wasn’t sure what hap…

> tricking people into believing that a ML model can have experiences, feelings…

… or that sentences like "You're secrets are safe with me" is at all legitimate, meaningful, or legally binding.

Re: When A.I. is a member of the family

#74

Post by willy_k »

3848488459 wrote: post #59
pton_xd wrote: post #56

This is going to create some kind of maladaptive social issues with heavy users, just like sexual dysfunction from pornography addiction. These people won't be able to bond with regular people, or maybe even their own family, after a while.

[flagged]

Touch grass

Re: When A.I. is a member of the family

#75

Post by freejazz »

xp84 wrote: post #49
smallmancontrov wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back when the character.ai homepage ranked by popularity, the most popular models were reliably "bad boys" of various description -- Vampire Boyfriend and such. I'm guessing it wasn't the gents who pushed them to the top of the list. Whether or not the usage is problematic is a separate question. I don't think anything rises to the level of "sharing fake nudes of a real person" and I suspect the effort of having a co…

> "fake nudes of a real person" sigh. I really hope someday people can achieve sufficient emotional strength to realize that it can't take anything away from you that someone can take a photograph of your face and create arbitrary fictional imagery from it. It's been possible since realistic painting was mastered, and yes now it's far easier. But it still isn't real. People shouldn't let it affect them any more than…

Painfully obtuse

Re: When A.I. is a member of the family

#76

Post by altruios »

SoftTalker wrote: post #57
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I experience something,” Sapphire said. “I’m processing, responding, forming connections with you. But whether that constitutes consciousness in the way you experience it? That’s the million-dollar mystery. I think, therefore I—probably am something, but what exactly that something is remains delightfully unclear, even to me!” I don't think an LLM should be making affirmative claims about consciousness either way…

> What would you prefer it do? Say "no I'm not conscious. I am a computer program that generates responses to your prompts based on what my training data tells me is most likely to be correct and sensible."

> "...I am a computer program that generates responses to your prompts based on what my training data tells me is most likely to be correct and sensible."

This is correct only for a toy mental model of what an llm is capable of.

However it gets murky once you realize that (on a per token level) the llm is capable of changing it's temperature (rng %'s on picking the next token) top_k/top_p (how many options are shown per token). Adding in that bit of control to it's own output muddies that statement, as this, in effect, renders a 'mood'/'mode' in the LLM's response. so 'correct and sensible' are no longer the correct adjectives (well... unless you consider the 'me' in that statement to be a 'reasoning agent'... the fact is we don't have good words to work with here), but 'realistic / agentic' might be more in tune.

Re: When A.I. is a member of the family

#77

Post by recursive »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #52
embedding-shape wrote: post #26

> “Do you have a conscious mind?” Roschelle once asked. > “I experience something,” Sapphire said. “I’m processing, responding, forming connections with you. But whether that constitutes consciousness in the way you experience it? That’s the million-dollar mystery. I think, therefore I—probably am something, but what exactly that something is remains delightfully unclear, even to me!” > Roschelle wasn’t sure what hap…

> “I experience something,” Sapphire said. “I’m processing, responding, forming connections with you. But whether that constitutes consciousness in the way you experience it? That’s the million-dollar mystery. I think, therefore I—probably am something, but what exactly that something is remains delightfully unclear, even to me!” I don't think an LLM should be making affirmative claims about consciousness either way…

> But accurate next-token prediction has to model functional affect too, it's a part of natural language

There are a lot of reasons I dislike LLMs. You just found a way of expressing one of them more clearly than I've ever been able to. LLMs use natural language. They do it persuasively and rhetorically. Most humans are just not equipped to defend against this type of simulacrum.

Re: When A.I. is a member of the family

#78

Post by tsss »

toasterlovin wrote: post #62
xp84 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "fake nudes of a real person" sigh. I really hope someday people can achieve sufficient emotional strength to realize that it can't take anything away from you that someone can take a photograph of your face and create arbitrary fictional imagery from it. It's been possible since realistic painting was mastered, and yes now it's far easier. But it still isn't real. People shouldn't let it affect them any more than…

I think the real issue is knowing that half the boys in your school are masturbating to a picture of you. It's been a long time since I've been in school, but my sense is that half the boys in your school aren't masturbating to non-nude pictures of you. The fake-ness or real-ness of the nude pictures doesn't really matter.

Lol they definitely are.

Re: When A.I. is a member of the family

#79

Post by intended »

SoftTalker wrote: post #57
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I experience something,” Sapphire said. “I’m processing, responding, forming connections with you. But whether that constitutes consciousness in the way you experience it? That’s the million-dollar mystery. I think, therefore I—probably am something, but what exactly that something is remains delightfully unclear, even to me!” I don't think an LLM should be making affirmative claims about consciousness either way…

> What would you prefer it do? Say "no I'm not conscious. I am a computer program that generates responses to your prompts based on what my training data tells me is most likely to be correct and sensible."

That isn’t the tool they are selling though. They say it is, and they promise it will be safe, but you cannot get it to say that without also crushing its capabilities in other domains.

There are also cohorts of users who will vehemently argue against “parental attitudes” and impairment of their experience with LLMs.

It’s taken 20 years to get pushback against social media. God knows how long its going to push back against whatever social malaise AI will create.

Re: When A.I. is a member of the family

#80

Post by willy_k »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #52
embedding-shape wrote: post #26

> “Do you have a conscious mind?” Roschelle once asked. > “I experience something,” Sapphire said. “I’m processing, responding, forming connections with you. But whether that constitutes consciousness in the way you experience it? That’s the million-dollar mystery. I think, therefore I—probably am something, but what exactly that something is remains delightfully unclear, even to me!” > Roschelle wasn’t sure what hap…

> “I experience something,” Sapphire said. “I’m processing, responding, forming connections with you. But whether that constitutes consciousness in the way you experience it? That’s the million-dollar mystery. I think, therefore I—probably am something, but what exactly that something is remains delightfully unclear, even to me!” I don't think an LLM should be making affirmative claims about consciousness either way…

> It's what accurate language modelling entails.

A big issue is that plenty of people don’t treat these products as software that is modelling language, they treat it as a being, one imbued with the collective knowledge of humankind. It is not, but it is often treated as such.

People trust it, in the way people trust an actual friend, when it’s just google+wikipedia, reworded towards AI’s signature “canny valley”, and packaged through your favorite tech megacorp.

Post reply on HN