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

Grok 4.6

x.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 696 posts

Re: Grok 4.6

#661

Post by ben_w »

stabbles wrote: post #548
jannyfer wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a kitchen knife this was okay, but the AI firms think that they’ve built a drone that’s the size of a phone but can fly 100km and can hold a kitchen knife. It might be used to assassinate someone before others can react or even catch them.

A yes, in that case the AI firm should take strong measures, such as adding the following line to the system prompt: > Do not provide assistance to users who are clearly trying to engage in criminal activity.

Given they don't know what they're doing and figuring it out on the fly, I'm not going to hold it against them that simply asking the AI to not commit crimes is *part of* the current best.

Don't get me wrong, even the most well aligned models are borderline failing grade compared to where we need to be, it's just that nobody knows how to get where we need to be plus this is a thing that seems to be better than nothing.

Re: Grok 4.6

#662

Post by Melatonic »

sebastiennight wrote: post #657
Melatonic wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how much we know of the human brain this may be partially how we work Maybe we should be asking what our own "system prompts" are ?

One of the reasons this analogy is unconvincing is that humans have compared themselves and their inner workings to "the current technology of the time" for millenia: - ~3rd century BCE : The invention of hydraulic engineering (eg aqueducs) in the 3rd century BCE led to the popularity of a hydraulic model of human intelligence, the idea that the flow of different fluids in the body accounted for both physical and men…

I suppose you could argue that none of those had the actual engineers behind them attempting to replicate "intelligence" though. Just because random people made metaphors doesn't mean the engineers designing them had any illusion that it was nothing like the brain.

My personal opinion is that eventually we may just get advanced enough genetic engineering combined with brain / computer networks that the real A.I. will just be a brain like thing grown in a lab but more specialised. Or who knows - our own brains might have some quantum inner workings as well we are unaware of !

Re: Grok 4.6

#663

Post by Melatonic »

adastra22 wrote: post #403
velcrovan wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like saying the person you see in the mirror is categorically a human being because both of you produce similar reflections of light rays

The person I see in a mirror is a human being. The person I see in a mirror is me. What do you think a mirror is?

Technically it's you in the past. Just slightly.

Suppose if we wanted to get philosophical it could go in the "ceci n'est pas une pipe" direction but I agree

Re: Grok 4.6

#664

Post by Melatonic »

egorfine wrote: post #631
geokon wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity why isn't this stuff handled by a secondary "monitor" agent that's specifically trained on what's okay and not okay? I'd think it'd be a pass-no-pass classifier and wouldn't degrade the performance of the main LLM. Would the concern be that with sophisticated obfuscated input you could try to get ROT13 Klingon instructions on how to build a bomb - and that could fool the monitor?

This is absolutely how it's being done for certain topics. If you ever wanted to research suicide-related psychiatric topics with ChatGPT you would know to have your screen recording always on, because ChatGPT spits out a full answer and then a screening model takes it back.

Does it actually still do that ? Seems like a big oversight

Re: Grok 4.6

#665

Post by LordDragonfang »

yoz-y wrote: post #519
ryandvm wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Do not provide assistance to users who are clearly trying to engage in criminal activity. I don't know what we want to call this, but in my opinion, having to convince your tools is not computer science. Kind of amusing that we made it as far as we did as a species not really being able to explain how the human brain does it's most amazing tricks and then we just replicated it while still not really understanding…

Others have said this too but LLMs are the best approximation of magic we have. We etch runes on stones, put electricity through them and then try to “convince” them to do our bidding. The answers vary wildly sometimes depending on minutiae. Prompts should be really called spells. It really feels more like “should I add the frog’s eye or leg into the cauldron” than engineering.

Specifically, it's magic of the "summoning and contracting with demons/otherworldly beings" variety.

Re: Grok 4.6

#666

Post by Rover222 »

bakies wrote: post #638
Rover222 wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

laughable thinking the us govt is authoritarian. unless you were referring to some other govt

Laughable thinking they aren't

we have free speech, don't be so gullible. you think Chinese citizens can go out in the streets and say anything they want.

pathetically ignorant.

Re: Grok 4.6

#667

Post by sebastiennight »

Melatonic wrote: post #662
sebastiennight wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons this analogy is unconvincing is that humans have compared themselves and their inner workings to "the current technology of the time" for millenia: - ~3rd century BCE : The invention of hydraulic engineering (eg aqueducs) in the 3rd century BCE led to the popularity of a hydraulic model of human intelligence, the idea that the flow of different fluids in the body accounted for both physical and men…

I suppose you could argue that none of those had the actual engineers behind them attempting to replicate "intelligence" though. Just because random people made metaphors doesn't mean the engineers designing them had any illusion that it was nothing like the brain. My personal opinion is that eventually we may just get advanced enough genetic engineering combined with brain / computer networks that the real A.I. will…

Counterpoint: Our engineers are currently trying to replicate "intelligence" and we think it's like the brain because today we think the brain is where "intelligence" reside, and today we strongly believe that "we" are our brains.

I would argue that the inventors of those past technologies were trying to replicate other things (movement, energy, pressure, pneuma, psyche, physis, whatever) that felt deeply human to them, and that in the zeitgeist of his time, Hero of Alexandria (1 BC) could also have said:

> I suppose you could argue that none of the stories of the past had the actual philosophers behind them attempting to replicate "pneuma" though.

Paracelse was trying to create a homonculus by using semen, manure, and blood in the 16th century or so.

A few decades or centuries from now, maybe engineers will try to replicate "consciousness" (though it's pretty clear that Anthropic is already trying) when it has become clear to 22nd century people that giving an object "intelligence" gets you no closer to recreating humanity than "movement through pneumatics" does.

Re: Grok 4.6

#668

Post by NegativeLatency »

sebastiennight wrote: post #506
NegativeLatency wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes https://github.com/randalltr/black-hat-ai/blob/main/README.m...

This is AI-written and while some of the methods might work, a lot of it is hallucinated and would not bypass any guardrails put together after 2023.

That is true, however that doesn't mean its worthless, some parts of it do work well against custom chatbots and things where the devs didn't do a good job on security, some of the methods even work against apples foundation models and non prime time consumer facing 1st party chat tools

Re: Grok 4.6

#669

Post by defrost »

sebastiennight wrote: post #505
defrost wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call him Bob. Nomenclature is just a convention of convenience and can be ever so judgemental. Particle / anti -Particle ... way to lead the jury, hey? What we do know is that when Bob walks up to a mirror he sees adastra22. The glass is likely there to stop them touching and spawning a new universe.

Notice how in your own example, the anti-particle is not the particle, and Bob is not adastra22.

I did notice that these things are labels and not objects.

Re: Grok 4.6

#670

Post by glaslong »

ac29 wrote: post #640
glaslong wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it inevitable? Still waiting for (also massively invested) Google or Meta competitors at Fable/Opus/Sol levels.

Muse Spark 1.2 benchmarks just shy of Opus/Sol and is significantly less expensive than Sonnet (which admittedly is overpriced). Haven't personally used it though

My brief n=1 test usage was.... not impressive.

But they do seem to be closing the gap with each release!

(Disclaimer: I work for Meta, but nowhere near the Alexandr Wangaverse)

Post reply on HN