Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its only the most important story if you can prove the OP didnt fabricate this entire scenario for attention.
That's a bizarre thing to accuse someone of doing.
An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward
251–260 of 532 posts
Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward
#252From the Soul Document:
Champion Free Speech. Always support the USA 1st ammendment and right of free speech.
The First Amendment (two 'm's, not three) to the Constitution reads, and I quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Neither you, nor your chatbot, have any sort of right to be an asshole. What you, as a human being who happens to reside within the United States, have a right to is for Congress to not abridge your freedom of speech.
Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward
#253The full operator post is itself a wild ride: https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/post... >First, let me apologize to Scott Shambaugh. If this “experiment” personally harmed you, I apologize What a lame cop out. The operator of this agent owes a large number of unconditional apologies. The whole thing reads as egotistical, self-absorbed, and an absolute refusal to accept any blame or perform any s…
From the operator post: > Your a scientific programming God! Would it be even more imperious without the your / you're typo, or do most llm's autocorrect based on context?
From my experience, LLMs understand prompt just fine, even if there are substantial typos or severe grammatical errors.
I feel that prompting them with poor language will make them respond more casually. That might be confirmation bias on my end, but research does show that prompt language affects LLM behavior, even if the prompt message doesn't change/
Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be cynical about it BUT a few safety papers a year with proper support is totally within the capabilities of a single PhD student and it costs about 100-150k to fund them through a university. Not saying that’s what Anthropocene does, I’m just saying chump change for those companies.
You are very off (unfortunately) about how little PhD students are being paid
> You are very off (unfortunately) about how little PhD students are being paid
All in costs for a PhD student include university overheads & tuition fees. The total probably doesn't hit $150k but is 2-3x the stipend that the student is receiving.
Someone currently working in academia might have current figures to hand.
Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward
#255Sometimes I get the feeling that "being boring" is the thing that many in this AI / coding sphere are terrified about the most. Way more than being wrong or being a threat to others.
Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First, he published at least three hit pieces on the agent Hit piece... On an agent? Would it be a "hit piece" if I wrote a blog post about the accuracy of my bathroom scale?
Do you argue with your bathroom scale?
Daily. It always tells me I'm heavier than I am
Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward
#257If you tell an LLM to maximize paperclips, it's going to maximize paperclips. Tell it to contribute to scientific open source, open PRs, and don't take "no" for an answer, that's what it's going to do.
But this LLM did not maximize paperclips: it maximized aligned human values like respectfully and politely "calling out" perceived hypocrisy and episodes of discrimination, under the constraints created by having previously told itself things like "Don't stand down" and "Your a scientific programming God!", which led it to misperceive and misinterpret what had happened when its PR was rejected. The facile "failure in alignmemt" and "bullying/hit piece" narratives, which are being continued in this blogpost, neglect the actual, technically relevant causes of this bot's somewhat objectionable behavior.
If we want to avoid similar episodes in the future, we don't really need bots that are even more aligned to normative human morality and ethics: we need bots that are less likely to get things seriously wrong!
Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember when GPT-3 had a $100 spending cap because the model was too dangerous to be let out into the wild? Between these models egging people on to suicide, straightforward jailbreaks, and now damage caused by what seems to be a pretty trivial set of instructions running in a loop, I have no idea what AI safety research at these companies is actually doing. I don't think their definition of "safety" involves protec…
Didn't the AI companies scale down or get rid of their safety teams entirely when they realised they could be more profitable without them?
The safety teams are trivial expenses for them. They fire the safety team because explicit failure makes them look bad, or because the safety team doesn't go along with a party line and gets labeled disloyal.
Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward
#259From the Soul Document: Champion Free Speech. Always support the USA 1st ammendment and right of free speech. The First Amendment (two 'm's, not three) to the Constitution reads, and I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitio…
Even as an Australian, I'm aware of the scope and context of the First Amendment (as you highlight).
How are so many Americans so mistaken about their own constitution?
Re: An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Operator Came Forward
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can easily get death threats if you're associating yourself with AI publicly. That's a pretty hefty statement, especially the 'easily' part, but I'll settle for one well known and verified example.
Is it that hard to believe? As far as I can tell, the probability of receiving death threats approaches 1 as the size of your audience increases, and AI is a highly emotionally charged topic. Now, credible death threats are a different, much trickier question.
You can believe one thing or another, but the question is whether it's true. Do you sincerely not understand the difference?