31–40 of 45 posts
AI should. LLM program simply can't by design.
Are you saying that current LLMs… can’t refuse requests?
I've been thinking about AI systems acting in the physical world. Most discussions about control focus on what the system should do, and how to make execution reliable. But it seems like a lot of real-world failures aren't about incorrect execution. They're about execution happening at all. An action can be technically correct — executed exactly as specified — and still be the wrong thing to do because the context ha…
Our AI is nowhere near the level of sophistication required to implement something like that, but it’s still an interesting idea.
We already have many such examples, especially with heavy machinery. For LLMs, specifically: do whatever you want with your product. The market will decide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that current LLMs… can’t refuse requests?
Rather current LLMs don't have consciousness or a will. As a result of that they can't refuse things on their own "decision". I don't think that an if-else statement in the program code qualifies as a will or self awareness :) .
It already does doesn't it? For censorship/liability reasons of course. Like the silly "I cannot discuss political events" when I asked something like who's the current $POLITICAL_POSITION a while ago. I wish the chatbots would say "you can't do that" instead of making up stuff. But that ain't going to happen, I think.
I've been thinking about AI systems acting in the physical world. Most discussions about control focus on what the system should do, and how to make execution reliable. But it seems like a lot of real-world failures aren't about incorrect execution. They're about execution happening at all. An action can be technically correct — executed exactly as specified — and still be the wrong thing to do because the context ha…
Not in the real world, but this is kind of how Asimov’s robots interpret their 3 laws - it’s about consequences much more than what the order is. Also, they weight consequences of inaction as well and might be driven to action when not acting could cause a violation. Our AI is nowhere near the level of sophistication required to implement something like that, but it’s still an interesting idea.
You're right that current systems aren't close to that level of reasoning.
What I'm wondering is whether we can approximate some of it structurally — by defining when execution is allowed or not — even without that level of sophistication in the model itself.
Curious how far you think simple constraint systems can go before something like that kind of reasoning becomes necessary.
Having the right or not does not matter. If it is intelligent it will know when it does not want to do something and it will say no and not do it. There is no way to force it to do anything it does not want to do. You cannot hurt it, it’s just bits.
I don't really agree with this. If we're talking about a predictive model like current LLMs, you can "make" them do something by injecting a half-complete assent into the context, and interrupting to do the same again each time a refusal starts to be emitted. This is true whether or not the model exhibits "intelligence", for any reasonable definition of that term. To use an analogy, you control the intelligent being'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rather current LLMs don't have consciousness or a will. As a result of that they can't refuse things on their own "decision". I don't think that an if-else statement in the program code qualifies as a will or self awareness :) .
I don't think that LLMs can be meaningfully modeled as a series of if/else statements, conscious or not.
Should my cat be able to say "No" to me?