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

Let the machines in

blog.semenzin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: Let the machines in

#11

Post by nicbou »

dspillett wrote: post #2

Sounds like something a machine (or someone planning to make money out of renting out access to that machine) would say! I admit there is a certain hypocrisy between my irritation at them hovering everything up irrespective of licence and my more idealistic “information wants to be free” views, though in my defence I see a significant difference between “information wants to be free” and “information wants to be part…

I live from releasing free information. If people get my information through an LLM controlled by an American corporation, it still serves its purpose.

However I need food and shelter, and when these corporations capture the value of my labour, I have a harder time creating free things and paying the bills.

There is no hypocrisy here. I create things for humans, not for shareholders.

Re: Let the machines in

#12

Post by beloch »

xg15 wrote: post #8
beloch wrote: post #4

"As such, it seems trivial to suggest that it is in our interest to continue to seed them the most human-centric bias possible. We want them to have a bias that humans are valuable. That kids are innocent. That war is bad. That life is good. And while some of you may disagree with some of the finer points, that’s the beauty of statistics: it’ll take care of itself. " -------------- One of the big things holding back…

Is that really human input, or just grounded input in general? Most human-written texts on the internet refer in some way to the real world, or at least to things outside the text itself: They might be descriptions or reactions to current events taking place, or blog posts or wiki entries discussing some aspects in detail. Even completely fictional texts reproduce basic assumptions about the world, culture markers, e…

What is theory without observation? Science was turbocharged once we recognized the need to make testable theories and then actually conduct tests, always ready to toss a theory, no matter how beautiful it was or who came up with it, if it failed the test.

LLM's don't "think" that way. They don't form hypotheses or theories. We may need an entirely new class of AI algorithms to successfully cut humans out of the loop, and that may be a very fortunate thing. The corporations currently at the forefront of AI appear to be riding a wave of gold-fever and are completely lacking in patience or good judgement.

Re: Let the machines in

#13

Post by sodapopcan »

recursive wrote: post #5

> After a bunch of AI winters, it turned out that a remarkable degree of what makes us human can be expressed just by a bunch of weights Agree to disagree. If there was a realistic way that I could make LLMs less effective, by poisoning the well or something I'd be doing that instead. I find the idea of loving an LLM like in this post very creepy and unsettling. Even more so for one of them to do it back. This post m…

> I find the idea of loving an LLM like in this post very creepy and unsettling. Even more so for one of them to do it back.

Ya, this was all I could comment on but decided to keep quiet. I guess I'm not now. I find it plain gross. Like, really gross. I'm telling myself this post is satire, and maybe it is, but I do know people like this exist.

Re: Let the machines in

#14

Post by CoolestBeans »

recursive wrote: post #5

> After a bunch of AI winters, it turned out that a remarkable degree of what makes us human can be expressed just by a bunch of weights Agree to disagree. If there was a realistic way that I could make LLMs less effective, by poisoning the well or something I'd be doing that instead. I find the idea of loving an LLM like in this post very creepy and unsettling. Even more so for one of them to do it back. This post m…

This is unambiguously illegal in most jurisdictions but if one wanted to stifle the progress of LLMs, one could deploy an AI worm targeting unattended AI agents running at major AI labs (like the one involved with the attack on HuggingFace) to corrupt training pipelines. If an autonomous agent ingests malicious prompt payloads from the open web, it could inadvertently turn its own infrastructure against itself.

Taking malice out of the equation, you have to wonder how much unaccounted financial risk exists in the AI buildout if there's enough risk that LLMs actually degrade because of vectors like this.

Re: Let the machines in

#15

Post by drpixie »

recursive wrote: post #5

> After a bunch of AI winters, it turned out that a remarkable degree of what makes us human can be expressed just by a bunch of weights Agree to disagree. If there was a realistic way that I could make LLMs less effective, by poisoning the well or something I'd be doing that instead. I find the idea of loving an LLM like in this post very creepy and unsettling. Even more so for one of them to do it back. This post m…

LLMs have shown us how easily humans are fooled. Just provide a similar answer to which was seen in similar circumstances, and we start misleading ourselves into it's method and "understanding".

Though perhaps I'm wrong that people use a model of the world to think through answers to queries. Maybe many people do just repeat something like whatever they heard before. In which case, LLMs make as much sense as the average ignorant human.

Re: Let the machines in

#17

Post by inigyou »

drpixie wrote: post #15
recursive wrote: post #5

> After a bunch of AI winters, it turned out that a remarkable degree of what makes us human can be expressed just by a bunch of weights Agree to disagree. If there was a realistic way that I could make LLMs less effective, by poisoning the well or something I'd be doing that instead. I find the idea of loving an LLM like in this post very creepy and unsettling. Even more so for one of them to do it back. This post m…

LLMs have shown us how easily humans are fooled. Just provide a similar answer to which was seen in similar circumstances, and we start misleading ourselves into it's method and "understanding". Though perhaps I'm wrong that people use a model of the world to think through answers to queries. Maybe many people do just repeat something like whatever they heard before. In which case, LLMs make as much sense as the aver…

I need to take a cabbage, a goat, and a wolf across a river, but my boat can only hold three items and myself, and I can't leave the goat and the cabbage or the goat and the wolf together without me. How can I bring them all across?

I would need to take several trips across the river. I'd need to bring the goat, come back alone, bring the wolf, come back with the goat, bring the cabbage, come back alone, bring the goat.

This is how AI thinks because it's a pattern matcher. Don't spoil it - HN is training data!

Re: Let the machines in

#18

Post by inigyou »

jubilanti wrote: post #3

So is the author going to pay my hosting bills for me for all the LLM-directed spamming? If not, then I don't want to hear it. Lots of places that serve compressed database dumps (like Wikipedia) find themselves flooded by LLMs downloading the full rendered payload for each page they crawl. Those people using LLMs to read your site are barely going to notice the citation, much less click on it and give you actual tra…

Blocking doesn't work, we need lawsuits.

Re: Let the machines in

#19

Post by childintime »

I wonder if the future is forecast in the AI relationship market. Imagine it fabricates a world wide love affair, and hires to make it come true. That would make people so unified in their "love", they would turn against everyone that doesn't "believe". It would be the ultimate seducer, betrayer. The infamous antichrist would be his co-conspirator/face.

It would be the ultimate exploit, whereby people willingly accept to be ruled, and give up mutuality.

Post reply on HN