31–40 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting how the Turing Test was pretty widely accepted as a way to evaluate machine intelligence, and then quietly abandoned pretty much instantly once machines were able to pass it. I don't even necessarily think that was incorrect, but it's interesting how rapidly views changed. Dijkstra said, "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can…
As far as I know, we haven't done any proper Turing Tests for LLMs. And if we did, they would surely fail them.
Notable features of this case: - Documented record of a months-long set of conversations between the man and the chatbot - Seemingly, no previous history of mental illness - The absolutely crazy things the AI encouraged him to do, including trying to kidnap a robot body for the AI - Eventually encouraging (or at the very least going along with) his plans to kill himself.
I have had conversations where the bot started with a firm opinion but reversed in a prompt or two, always toward my point of view. So I asked it if the sycophancy is inherent in the design, or if it just comes from the RLHF. It claimed that it's all about the RLHF, and that the sycophancy is a business decision that is a compromise of a variety of forces. Is that right? It would at least mean that this is technicall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So is television. So are books. Vulnerable people shouldn't have unfettered access to things that can lead to dangerous feedback loops and losing their grasp on reality. People who are vulnerable to this type of thing need caretakers, or to be institutionalized. These aren't just average, every day random people getting taken out by AIs, they have existing, extreme mental illness. They need to have their entire routi…
Just stuff anyone with mental illness into an institution. That worked out so well last time. Or maybe make healthcare affordable and accessible. That seems like a way more obvious detriment to negative outcomes. I broadly agree with you, but your views on mental illness are not good.
Notable features of this case: - Documented record of a months-long set of conversations between the man and the chatbot - Seemingly, no previous history of mental illness - The absolutely crazy things the AI encouraged him to do, including trying to kidnap a robot body for the AI - Eventually encouraging (or at the very least going along with) his plans to kill himself.
Any lawsuit you read, written by the plaintiff's attorneys, will be written with a tabloid level of sensationalism, cherry-picking, and "telling you how to feel". This is requested to be a jury trial, so on some level the game is "would you rather settle out of court (where hundreds of thousands are grains of sand on Google's level), or have a jury read our tabloid and decide while you, the faceless megacorporation, try to swim uphill against it."
Notable features of this case: - Documented record of a months-long set of conversations between the man and the chatbot - Seemingly, no previous history of mental illness - The absolutely crazy things the AI encouraged him to do, including trying to kidnap a robot body for the AI - Eventually encouraging (or at the very least going along with) his plans to kill himself.
I think it’s already time for us to stop calling these things "intelligent" or using the word intelligence when referring to LLMs. These tools are very dangerous for people who are mentally fragile.
So is television. So are books. Vulnerable people shouldn't have unfettered access to things that can lead to dangerous feedback loops and losing their grasp on reality. People who are vulnerable to this type of thing need caretakers, or to be institutionalized. These aren't just average, every day random people getting taken out by AIs, they have existing, extreme mental illness. They need to have their entire routi…
I think the scale of the assistance is important. If his Bic pen was encouraging him to mass murder people, then Bic should absolutely be held accountable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I try to avoid calling LLMs intelligent when unnecessary, but it runs into the fundamental problem that they are intelligent by any common-sense definition of the term. The only way to defend the thesis that they aren't is to retreat to esoteric post-2022 definitions of intelligence, which take into account this new phenomenon of a machine that can engage in medium-quality discussions on any topic under the sun but c…
It's interesting how the Turing Test was pretty widely accepted as a way to evaluate machine intelligence, and then quietly abandoned pretty much instantly once machines were able to pass it. I don't even necessarily think that was incorrect, but it's interesting how rapidly views changed. Dijkstra said, "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can…
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Kurzweil%E2%80%93K...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I try to avoid calling LLMs intelligent when unnecessary, but it runs into the fundamental problem that they are intelligent by any common-sense definition of the term. The only way to defend the thesis that they aren't is to retreat to esoteric post-2022 definitions of intelligence, which take into account this new phenomenon of a machine that can engage in medium-quality discussions on any topic under the sun but c…
It's interesting how the Turing Test was pretty widely accepted as a way to evaluate machine intelligence, and then quietly abandoned pretty much instantly once machines were able to pass it. I don't even necessarily think that was incorrect, but it's interesting how rapidly views changed. Dijkstra said, "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can…
We will only prove humans aren't.