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

Two Months After I Gave an AI $100 and No Instructions

sebastian-jais.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: Two Months After I Gave an AI $100 and No Instructions

#101

Post by mplanchard »

timmb wrote: post #69

I don't understand why so many of these comments HN is getting are so fixated on writing style. I appreciate that stylistic traits associated with AI-written text are often indicative of contentless slop. But lots of people also write like that. To moan about writing style without even considering the value of the content just sounds cranky to me. Anyway, I enjoyed reading the experiment, and the starting premise, an…

If the author couldn’t be bothered to write it, why should I be bothered to read it?

Re: Two Months After I Gave an AI $100 and No Instructions

#102

Post by lamasery »

spwa4 wrote: post #92
lamasery wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All these years later and the Eliza effect is as powerful as ever.

You could reverse that argument. The only thing that ever happens in a human mind is a Sodium-Kalium semi-permeable membrane balancing out (meaning going from polarized to unpolarized) and triggering the tiniest of explosions spreading one of 4 chemicals around. Repeat a few billion times per second for ~80 years. The Eliza effect is off the scale. What I'm trying to say is that the underlying method is not a valid r…

I remain baffled that anyone thinks dragging brains into discussions of these things does anything but make everyone more confused. This kind of thing is exactly what I'm getting at—that it's common for even people in the computer technology field to think the comparison is apt, or illuminates anything, is a wild indication of how inclined we are to be tricked by computer programs that happen to operate on language.

Re: Two Months After I Gave an AI $100 and No Instructions

#103

Post by lamasery »

cpfohl wrote: post #9
davkap92 wrote: post #6

Interesting but by telling it to check X for mentions of itself, that is an action.. wouldn't this essentially direct it and hence be steered/controlled by random individuals on the internet?

Yeah, I genuinely can't figure out what an AI would do with "no instructions."

Yeah you gotta pick which Plinko board to drop your chip in. Even if you have a separate machine randomly pick one for you, you've still gotta do it. Plinko board don't play itself.

Re: Two Months After I Gave an AI $100 and No Instructions

#104

Post by scotty79 »

cpfohl wrote: post #9
davkap92 wrote: post #6

Interesting but by telling it to check X for mentions of itself, that is an action.. wouldn't this essentially direct it and hence be steered/controlled by random individuals on the internet?

Yeah, I genuinely can't figure out what an AI would do with "no instructions."

Try it. Just make a loop. Periodically tell it current time and what tools it has available. See where it goes.

Re: Two Months After I Gave an AI $100 and No Instructions

#105

Post by scoofy »

sva_ wrote: post #84
micromacrofoot wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not disagreeing, but what is thought? If I write something down, read it, and write more words about those words... did I think about it? How would you prove that I did or did not?

You can go into things like the Chinese Room argument, but I'm not sure it leads anywhere.

I mean, there are still philosophers metaphorically fist fighting about this stuff. Last time I stepped into the fray on this topic I got clapped back by someone from an area of philosophy of mind from after I graduated. It was an interesting perspective that was unaware of, but I studied language, not mind:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47497757#47511217

I honestly never thought having a philosophy degree would be so relevant.

Re: Two Months After I Gave an AI $100 and No Instructions

#106

Post by gloosx »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #35
enopod_ wrote: post #13

"It thought about its money. It reflected on its own purpose. It questioned what it even means to be an autonomous agent." I don't think it did any of that.

I'm not disagreeing, but what is thought? If I write something down, read it, and write more words about those words... did I think about it? How would you prove that I did or did not?

Thought is a derivative of sensory processing. LLM does not have a physical body to interact with the world, nor does it develop itself and learn anything by experiencing the world, it has no subjective experience or subjective feeling, it has no qualia, it's symbols are not grounded in physical reality and it's "thoughts" is a mere simulacrum. Anyone personifying an LLM is just derealised by convincing outputs, not realising that manipulating symbols according to rules does not imply understanding

Re: Two Months After I Gave an AI $100 and No Instructions

#107

Post by keeda »

mplanchard wrote: post #101
timmb wrote: post #69

I don't understand why so many of these comments HN is getting are so fixated on writing style. I appreciate that stylistic traits associated with AI-written text are often indicative of contentless slop. But lots of people also write like that. To moan about writing style without even considering the value of the content just sounds cranky to me. Anyway, I enjoyed reading the experiment, and the starting premise, an…

If the author couldn’t be bothered to write it, why should I be bothered to read it?

Because it still could have novel and interesting content?

Re: Two Months After I Gave an AI $100 and No Instructions

#108

Post by keeda »

I find it interesting that given lack of direction or motive, the agent chose to do essentially two things:

1. Seek new information (browse HN);

2. Identify new connections between disparate pieces of information (as evidenced in those blog posts).

(The 3rd thing was donate money, but that seems almost like it simply chose the option of least harm.)

I wonder if all intelligence can be boiled down to these two mechanisms. What if the only "goal", in the sense of the "Selfish Gene", of intelligence is to self-perpetuate. One way this could be done is by seeking order within entropy.

In any case, this agent seems to have settled into the only mode intrinsic to it, because that's how it was created. I'm reminded of the "Zima Blue" episode of "Love, Death & Robots".

Re: Two Months After I Gave an AI $100 and No Instructions

#109

Post by t1234s »

t1234s wrote: post #37

I was hoping the result would be a bit more exciting than it just giving money away and writing some essays.

For instance write malware that spreads via different vectors and display a system modal that forces people to donate to select organizations or face deletion of all their files.

Re: Two Months After I Gave an AI $100 and No Instructions

#110

Post by spwa4 »

lamasery wrote: post #102
spwa4 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could reverse that argument. The only thing that ever happens in a human mind is a Sodium-Kalium semi-permeable membrane balancing out (meaning going from polarized to unpolarized) and triggering the tiniest of explosions spreading one of 4 chemicals around. Repeat a few billion times per second for ~80 years. The Eliza effect is off the scale. What I'm trying to say is that the underlying method is not a valid r…

I remain baffled that anyone thinks dragging brains into discussions of these things does anything but make everyone more confused. This kind of thing is exactly what I'm getting at—that it's common for even people in the computer technology field to think the comparison is apt, or illuminates anything, is a wild indication of how inclined we are to be tricked by computer programs that happen to operate on language.

The point is, of course, that human thinking is also a physical process, build on basic building blocks.
Post reply on HN