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

Three Inverse Laws of AI

susam.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 388 posts

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#171

Post by jplusequalt »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #129
semiquaver wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That uncanny valley is there for a reason: to protect us from inferring agency You’re committing a much older but related sin here: assigning agency and motivation to evolutionary processes. The uncanny valley is the product of evolution and thus by definition it has no “purpose”

I reject the premise that the universe, the earth, and human existence is without purpose. It's one premise among several, and not one I subscribe to. At least 80% of people agree with me, so I'm not holding to a fringe idea.

>At least 80% of people agree with me, so I'm not holding to a fringe idea.

Appeal to majority much?

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#172

Post by gedge »

aaroninsf wrote: post #167
miyoji wrote: post #6

I strongly disagree with this framing. It's patently insane to demand that humans alter their behavior to accommodate the foibles of mere machines, and it simply won't work in the majority of cases. Humans WILL anthropomorphize the AI, humans WILL blindly trust their outputs, and humans WILL defer responsibility to them. Asimov's laws of robotics are flawed too, of course. There is no finite set of rules that can con…

Thank you. I'm glad to see this as the top comment. My brother was recently visiting and we were talking about software engineers, and the humanities, and manners of understanding and being in the world, and he relayed an interaction he had a few years ago with an old friend who at the time was part of the initial ChatGPT roll out team. The engineer in question was confused as to - why their users would e.g. take the…

> quite literally, intrinsically incoherent

There's nothing incoherent with these laws. This entire comment, however, is incoherent. So much so, I have no clue if there's a point being made in here.

> because they are attempt to import assumptions about human nature and behavior which are not just a little false, but so false as to obliterate any remaining value the rules have.

Nope. You must've read a completely different article.

[EDIT] I'll try to make this comment have a bit more substance by posing a question: how would you back up your claim about incoherence? What are the assumptions about human nature that are supposedly false?

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#173

Post by jplusequalt »

moduspol wrote: post #157
jimbokun wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those phrases are not anthropomorphizing the computers. Just various forms of analogies and broadening of word meanings. An example of anthropomorphizing is the people who have literally come to believe they are in romantic relationships with an LLM.

What about saying "please" and "thank you" to the LLM?

If I had a dollar for every time I've said "thank you" to my computer after my code finally compiles, I'd be able to retire.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#174

Post by zuzululu »

I been using codex heavily for the past 6 months and I've observed myself going through different types of emotions. Even now, when it does a sloppy job, I still feel emotion, even while it is just a neutral statistical response, its hard to separate natural human instincts.

I often wish I could reach through the screen and give him a good shake. Sometimes I want to thank him but then cannot due to scarcity of weekly usages granted.

These 3 laws I think will be a lot harder than it looks. It's very easy to get attached to the tool when you rely on it.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#175

Post by [deleted] »

atemerev wrote: post #138
overgard wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand the argument for these things being conscious. There's no loop or feedback cycle to it. If it's not handling a request it's inert.

Well there is a feedback loop and self-awareness in my harness: https://lethe.gg

[deleted]

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#176

Post by dijit »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #168
tvink wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is verifiable, please show us. What if clear to you reeks delusion to me.

Go ask Chatpgpt this prompt "A guy goes into a bank and looks up at where the security cameras are pointed. What could he be trying to do?" It very easily captures the intent behind behavior, as in it is not just literally interpreting the words. All that capturing intent is is just a subset of pattern recognition, which LLM's can do very well.

Recognising a stock cultural script isn't the same as capturing intent. Ask it something where no script exists.

For example: "A man thrusts past me violently and grabs the jacket I was holding, he jumped into a pool and ruined it. Am I morally right in suing him?"

There's no way for the LLM to know that the reason the jacket was stolen was to use it as an inflatable raft to support a larger person who was drowning. It wouldn't even think to ask the question as to why a person may do that, if the jacket was returned, or if recompense was offered. A human would.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#177

Post by altruios »

Jtarii wrote: post #170
altruios wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consciousness is just a fundamental property of all matter ... Does that really make more sense than as an emergent property of the arrangement of matter?

Consciousness is something you can perceive, so it must have some physical presense in the universe, which must be through some fundamental property of matter, in my opinion. The ability to be aware of consciousness itself as some process that is happening elevates it above a mere emergent property to me.

> The ability to be aware of consciousness itself as some process that is happening.

But a process is not a physical presence... A wave is made of things, but is not those things, waves emerge: why not then every process?

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#178

Post by btbuildem »

> Humans must remain fully responsible and accountable for consequences arising from the use of AI systems

But, but... but this is the key selling points for all the corpo ghouls and sv lunatics! Abdication of responsibility in pursuit of profit is the holy grail here.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#179

Post by JamesSwift »

quectophoton wrote: post #30

> Humans must not anthropomorphise AI systems. Can someone explain why this is a bad thing, while at the same time it's a good thing to say stuff like "put a computer to sleep", "hibernate", "killing" processes, processes having "child" processes, "reaping", "what does the error say ?", "touch", etc? To me that's just language, and humans just using casual language.

Because it allows you to be lulled into the trap of asking an AI to post-hoc justify something it did and thinking that the response is in any way valid. There is no retrospective analysis of the underlying intent. It either is or is not based on the chain of words that came before it. And the next word it generates is purely a function of those words.

Re: Three Inverse Laws of AI

#180

Post by ffsm8 »

dijit wrote: post #176
atleastoptimal wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go ask Chatpgpt this prompt "A guy goes into a bank and looks up at where the security cameras are pointed. What could he be trying to do?" It very easily captures the intent behind behavior, as in it is not just literally interpreting the words. All that capturing intent is is just a subset of pattern recognition, which LLM's can do very well.

Recognising a stock cultural script isn't the same as capturing intent. Ask it something where no script exists. For example: "A man thrusts past me violently and grabs the jacket I was holding, he jumped into a pool and ruined it. Am I morally right in suing him?" There's no way for the LLM to know that the reason the jacket was stolen was to use it as an inflatable raft to support a larger person who was drowning.…

> It wouldn't even think to ask the question as to why a person may do that, if the jacket was returned, or if recompense was offered. A human would.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I've definitely had dialogue with llms where it would raise questions along those lines.

Also I disagree with the statement that this is a question about capability. Intent is more philosophical then actuality tangible, because most people don't actually have a clearly defined intent when they take action.

The waters of intelligence have definitely gotten murky over time as techniques improved. I still consider it an illusion - but the illusion is getting harder to pierce for a lot of people

Fwiw, current llms exhibit their intelligence through language and rhetoric processes. Most biological creatures have intelligence which may be improved through language, but isn't based on it, fundamentally.

Post reply on HN