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

The Monster Inside ChatGPT

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 152 posts

Re: The Monster Inside ChatGPT

#101

Post by econ »

verall wrote: post #72
K0balt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk, I think that the motives of most companies are to maximize profits, and part of maximizing profits is minimizing risks. Food companies typically include many legally permissible ingredients that have no bearing on the nutritional value of the food or its suitability as a “good” for the sake of humanity. A great example is artificial sweeteners in non-diet beverages. Known to have deleterious effects on health, t…

> A great example is artificial sweeteners in non-diet beverages. Do you have an example? Every drink I've seen with artificial sweeteners is because their customers (myself included) want the drinks to have less calories. Sugary drinks is a much clearer understood health risk than aspartame or sucralose.

Google "aspartame rumsveld" I haven't fact checked the horror story but makes a good one for the campfire.

Re: The Monster Inside ChatGPT

#105

Post by rob_c »

MarkusQ wrote: post #102

It's a mirror, for gosh sakes. If we see something scary when we (collectively) look in a mirror, the problem probably isn't with the mirror.

There's a bit more nuance to the research which is lost in the alarmist media reporting, but welcome to the realisation that a highly technical field will be misreported on by sensationalist headlines for clicks.

Re: The Monster Inside ChatGPT

#107

Post by solarwindy »

Azkron wrote: post #77

| "Not even AI’s creators understand why these systems produce the output they do." I am so tired of this "NoBody kNows hoW LLMs WoRk". It fucking software. Sophisticated probability tables with self correction. Not magic. Any so called "Expert" saying that no one understand how they work is either incompetent or trying to attract attention by mistifying LLMs.

The relevant research field is known as mechanistic interpretability. See:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14082

https://www.anthropic.com/research/mapping-mind-language-mod...

Re: The Monster Inside ChatGPT

#108

Post by tempodox »

sorokod wrote: post #90
marviel wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that people who " good due to naivety ", are less reliably good than those who " know evil, and choose good anyway ".

Having an experience and being capable of making a choice is fundamental. A relevant martial arts quote: "A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence. He chooses peace. He must be able to make a choice. He must have…

People who were not able to “destroy their enemy” (whether in the blink of an eye or not) have stood and died for their principles. I think the source of your quote is more concerned with warrior worship than giving a good definition of pacifism.

Re: The Monster Inside ChatGPT

#109

Post by gamerdonkey »

MarkusQ wrote: post #102

It's a mirror, for gosh sakes. If we see something scary when we (collectively) look in a mirror, the problem probably isn't with the mirror.

Ooh, fun metaphor!

Mirrors are not entirely passive objects. Tinting, fog, and scratches affect the quality of their reflection. They can be tilted and turned to reflect a different angle of ourselves or another object entirely. Depending on their shape, they can present a near-perfect image, a distorted view, or they can focus light into a destructive point of intense energy.

Re: The Monster Inside ChatGPT

#110

Post by ghugccrghbvr »

tempodox wrote: post #108
sorokod wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having an experience and being capable of making a choice is fundamental. A relevant martial arts quote: "A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence. He chooses peace. He must be able to make a choice. He must have…

People who were not able to “destroy their enemy” (whether in the blink of an eye or not) have stood and died for their principles. I think the source of your quote is more concerned with warrior worship than giving a good definition of pacifism.

THIS

And yes, I know, not HN approved content

Post reply on HN