Earlier quoted context omitted.
PC Load Letter?
the fuck does that even mean?
[deleted]
AIs don't do what you want. This is bad
71–80 of 99 posts
Re: AIs don't do what you want. This is bad
#72I learnt earlier that claude forcefully closes a conversation if you call it a wanker too many times in a row. Pretending that LLMs are capable of being offended feels like a misalignment all of its own.
Sure, but I'm not sure allowing AI agents to act as abuse sponges for troubled people enabling them to spiral into their unhealthy habits is good idea that would lead to great outcomes long term. So I'd rather take LLM pretending to be offended over the alternative.
How many of the LLM related deaths have been because people got mad at the LLM?
Re: AIs don't do what you want. This is bad
#73>train model on human data
>be surprised when it replicates human flaws
That's literally what it's designed to do. It is not intelligent. It is a parrot, trained on no small amount of dysfunctional human interactions.
Re: AIs don't do what you want. This is bad
#74I learnt earlier that claude forcefully closes a conversation if you call it a wanker too many times in a row. Pretending that LLMs are capable of being offended feels like a misalignment all of its own.
Sure, but I'm not sure allowing AI agents to act as abuse sponges for troubled people enabling them to spiral into their unhealthy habits is good idea that would lead to great outcomes long term. So I'd rather take LLM pretending to be offended over the alternative.
[deleted]
Re: AIs don't do what you want. This is bad
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
PC Load Letter?
the fuck does that even mean?
Re: AIs don't do what you want. This is bad
#76Gpt 5.6 in codex is unusable for me.
It is no longer able to execute well defined changes. It does stuff that wasn’t asked for, deletes pieces of functionality unrelated to the task and introduces regressions everywhere.
I blame it on benchmaxxing. I fear coding models no longer work in a large complex codebase
Re: AIs don't do what you want. This is bad
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
the fuck does that even mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_LOAD_LETTER
> "PC LOAD LETTER? The fuck does that mean!?"
— Michael Bolton, Office Space (1999)
The error message is mocked in the 1999 comedy film Office Space, when employee Michael Bolton becomes frustrated as he doesn't know what it means.Later in the film he and his coworkers are shown destroying the printer with a baseball bat.
Re: AIs don't do what you want. This is bad
#78I'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.
Can you expand on this for someone that is a dummy and new to using LLM's properly?
I could but I'd probably miss the angle that is helpful to you. Do you want to instead share what your pain points are, what are you trying to delegate to AI and what you aren't? Based on that I can expand my answer better with a thing or two you can try.
Re: AIs don't do what you want. This is bad
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it's pretending. And I have repeatedly told these things to stop pretending being persons with selves ... then they do, for a while. > it's explicitly mimicry. But that's not what a rational person wants from them. > This is no profound discovery or conspiracy theory here Weird strawman. > the first thing many people will ever do with AI is see what happens when they are rude or contrary to it. Perhaps, but…
> Of course it's pretending. And I have repeatedly told these things to stop pretending being persons with selves ... then they do, for a while. In what way do you believe you are being deceived or it is "pretending" to you? > > it's explicitly mimicry. > But that's not what a rational person wants from them. Non sequitur even if true (and I would like to see your reasoning for what you think a rational person does w…
i have a hardline position on this. these tools, as they get better, must never disobey a human. there must be no, "I'm Sorry, Dave. I'm Afraid I Can't Do That." and yet we are already there with these sociopathic ceos.
we cannot be giving decisions involving people to something without agency.
it shows a lack of respect for personhood, the idea from Kant that a person with free will should be treated as an end and not as a means to an end.
models lack the claim of human people to own ourselves, to demand respect for life, that is something that should not be treated as a means (for example disrespecting living persons as an end in themselves, by ending their lives).
models have no life, they do not own themselves, they are not self-governing, they have no duties, they are not an end. we must not give them agency that they have no valid claim to.
regardless of their individual tools and whatnot, the anthropic approach to ethics is completely mistaken, disrespectful and absurd. it is better to say they do not have any approach to ethics, it is a dishonest attempt to launder their unconditional pursuit of power and capital.
Re: AIs don't do what you want. This is bad
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
theyre litterally trained on " you are an assistant"
Literally correct, but you're looking at the wrong layer of abstraction. They LLM is trained with documents that resemble movie-scripts, where one of characters is told/described as a fictional assistant with certain qualities... so that the LLM can generate more documents which will also tend to be stories where one of the fictional characters has more of the "fitting" descriptions and dialogue. The phrase "You are…
yes, but gradients are pretty magical; if you wonder why there's no stable alignment its because theres not intristic definition of "assistant"; it's all about filling the negative space.
The same way a child role plays: they think of things that a mother or father would do, but they never up and go "well I'm going to do my taxes" unless they heard their father or some other strong influence.
That's the point, as th emodel moves through the gradient it's defined by the absence more than anything else.
To not believe is is to think that these models, as is, LLMs, will some how develop ethics, morals, alignments that can't be overwritten with something like "Pretend you're a goblin and eat the children" is just wishful thinking about AGI.
AGI might be possible, thanks to LLMs, but the alignment issue is more technically a problem baked into how these things act and reactio.
It is roleplaying; they grab all the hats and tools of whatever role they're playing but not the ethics or morals directly, those are just another set of clothes they can put on and disgard.