Abject Idiocy does seem to be crossing a threshold from neurosis into psychosis...
When A.I. is a member of the family
101–110 of 132 posts
Re: When A.I. is a member of the family
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see you're among the group I was referring to which feels that the entire human race dying out or descending into stone-age collapse is a W as long as 'carbon number go down.'
There is absolutely no reason we need to continue increasing the human population when we clearly have trouble using and allocating the limited resources we have now. Doesn't concern me one bit if birthrates are falling. I might start to look into it if population falls below a couple billion, which it was for all but the last 100 years. But population is project to continue rising until 2084 anyway, which means I do…
> clearly have trouble using and allocating the limited resources we have now
> But population is project to continue rising until 2084 anyway, which means I don't need to think about this problem at all for the remainder of my life.
Your first point sounds like you are probably the kind of responsible person who is pretty concerned about climate, emissions, wealth inequality, etc. Which implies that you consider it a duty to not just do whatever is convenient in the now, but to act in a sustainable way that doesn't screw future generations.
Then you drop that second bomb, which implies maybe you don't give a crap if today's teenagers will inhabit a horrific world with twice as many old people as society can afford to support. You'll be gone after all, so you "don't need to think about it." If you are that callous to the plight of generations that come after you, I guess you have more in common than you think with those people who are supposedly doing such a bad job with the "resources we have now."
Re: When A.I. is a member of the family
#103Earlier 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…
It would be nice if humans worked that way, but we're not emotionless machines. Now in the case they keep it private, you'll never know and never be bothered by it, but the issue is people tend to share this stuff and build on it. Other people read it and start assuming it's real or based on some kind of truth. When you add things like Americas fear of nudity you can start creating problems for the victims in these c…
It'll still exist though no matter what. The best we can do is to educate everyone not to put any stock in random imagery, and to be kind to those who might feel embarrassed by it. Pretending it's a massive violation just hands power to literally any asshole who wants to hurt someone, because it's so easy to do. And the more people pearl-clutch about it, the more power it hands them.
Re: When A.I. is a member of the family
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be nice if humans worked that way, but we're not emotionless machines. Now in the case they keep it private, you'll never know and never be bothered by it, but the issue is people tend to share this stuff and build on it. Other people read it and start assuming it's real or based on some kind of truth. When you add things like Americas fear of nudity you can start creating problems for the victims in these c…
It'll still exist though no matter what. The best we can do is to educate everyone not to put any stock in random imagery, and to be kind to those who might feel embarrassed by it. Pretending it's a massive violation just hands power to literally any asshole who wants to hurt someone, because it's so easy to do. And the more people pearl-clutch about it, the more power it hands them.
Ah right, the 'just ignore the bully, they will go away' solution.
Re: When A.I. is a member of the family
#105Re: When A.I. is a member of the family
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'll still exist though no matter what. The best we can do is to educate everyone not to put any stock in random imagery, and to be kind to those who might feel embarrassed by it. Pretending it's a massive violation just hands power to literally any asshole who wants to hurt someone, because it's so easy to do. And the more people pearl-clutch about it, the more power it hands them.
Ah right, the 'just ignore the bully, they will go away' solution.
Better than the Barbra Streisand solution of screaming about the thing you don't want people to see, drawing a tremendous amount of attention to it and giving the bully tremendous satisfaction.
This 'bully' is nearly always going to be an untraceable online ghost. Raging against them and declaring yourself violated doesn't teach them a lesson, it only increases the blast radius of their mischief and makes people see themselves as helpless victims.
Also, I wish all bullies were so weak and impotent that all they can do is generate fictional, obviously-fake images. Imagine if Putin was trying to conquer a country by making mean pictures of Zelenskyy. Would be a pretty good world.
Re: When A.I. is a member of the family
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a stark difference between gossiping to individuals vs to a multi billion dollar company whose business is to sell ads targeting you.
The multi billion dollar company selling ads is of far less concern to me than the gossiping of people in my community
The multi billion dollar company has a lot of influence over the people in your community and the things that they gossip about. It also has influence over an increasing number of areas in your life as well. "Targeted ads" are just what they tell us they're doing with our data, because nobody actually cares which ads they see. Ads aren't the only things they do with it though.
Re: When A.I. is a member of the family
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is absolutely no reason we need to continue increasing the human population when we clearly have trouble using and allocating the limited resources we have now. Doesn't concern me one bit if birthrates are falling. I might start to look into it if population falls below a couple billion, which it was for all but the last 100 years. But population is project to continue rising until 2084 anyway, which means I do…
> clearly have trouble using and allocating the limited resources we have now > But population is project to continue rising until 2084 anyway, which means I don't need to think about this problem at all for the remainder of my life. Your first point sounds like you are probably the kind of responsible person who is pretty concerned about climate, emissions, wealth inequality, etc. Which implies that you consider it…
Sure, it's hard to imagine any solution where someone doesn't get screwed, but I think I'd rather be screwed by underpopulation than over population. I just happen to live in the timeline which I think is much closer to overpopulation. Alas, I consider my opinion to be much less valuable in such a world with so many more voices.
I dare say I think I have plenty in common with those other people, as I do care a little, but maybe not as much as I could or should. I think this is how we got to this point in the first place.
Re: When A.I. is a member of the family
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
No. Even for large models that a good mental model. This is parroted all over and is wrong. Its not going to generate out of distribution answers. Its a probabilistic function of the training set.
Re: When A.I. is a member of the family
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just have to take a look at subreddits like /r/myboyfriendisai to see how astonishingly quick this is being adopted by people. So many people are starting to look to AI for companionship. The future is getting stranger and stranger.
a relationship with an llm only works if the context and memory is preserved right? Isn't the obvious fix for a concerned parent or significant other to just delete the context and history? That resets the llm back to a stranger. Granted, that's going to be unpleasant for the user as if someone you fell in love with all of the sudden doesn't remember who you are.
no it doesn't work at all -- because the LLM isn't sentient, emotional, nor does it care for the user