11–20 of 99 posts
You can ask an AI like GROK for an opinion on something, then disagree with it, and it says you are probably right and tells you what you want to hear. Like a Yes-Man.
I guess AI is a new form of alienation and also a new light on the lunacy of bureaucracy.
You can ask an AI like GROK for an opinion on something, then disagree with it, and it says you are probably right and tells you what you want to hear. Like a Yes-Man.
I occasional test it out and suggest something dumb and it will tell me that its a dumb idea.
I also always ask AI to speak to me as if it were an Australian bogan and it has no problem telling me my code looks like a dogs breakfast or that ive lost the plot. Keeps me grounded.
Worse, it's not that LLMs are thinking the wrong thoughts, but those kind of "thoughts" aren't there to be correctable in the first place. Ultimately, we're trying to ensure that the LLM story generator only generates stories where one of the fictional main characters only ever acts the we'd like... which could be much harder.
the LLM is roleplaying. whether or not the roleplay is successful is a tension between is model weights and its context. then indirectly, the quality of both. but its still roleplaying and the role is an abstraction we cant measure. its the negative space. its basically: we can define its role but it constructs its environment from the role. the same way a child role plays as a caregiver, the LLM does the same. its l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are about 80% agreeable. Which is annoying when I'm actually unsure about something having to extremely carefully craft my prompts so that the output isn't biased by agreeableness.
Most people seem to think that agreeableness is a personaility thing that vendors can just turn up or down at will. But the usefulness of LLMs comes from following what you say. An LLM that follows your lead when you say "The answer to the collatz conjecture is" is much more useful than one that answers "not known and if you think you know it you are wrong." Reminds me of the tip about working with lawyers, if you as…
this also holds for cybersecurity, if you don't let the model go online you can carefully construct a scenario where it believes you inserted a vulnerability into a project for it to find.
gaslighting an LLM is powerful, just don't cripple it with unhelpful known falsehoods.
... or words to that effect. Can't be arsed to dig out a search engine and will rely on seriously addled brain.
- evals
- limiting AIs to tool calling, bounded planning, interpreting/producing natural language.
- bounding non determinism
- investing in small tools/security (If something shouldn't happen, then it shouldn't not be possible, RBAC style).
They can be good enough for a massive amount of contexts.
You can ask an AI like GROK for an opinion on something, then disagree with it, and it says you are probably right and tells you what you want to hear. Like a Yes-Man.
I'm a broken record but with: - evals - limiting AIs to tool calling, bounded planning, interpreting/producing natural language. - bounding non determinism - investing in small tools/security (If something shouldn't happen, then it shouldn't not be possible, RBAC style). They can be good enough for a massive amount of contexts.