51–60 of 453 posts
I don’t understand the “dystopian” angle. Maybe I’m just old, but I remember the wonder when the Internet made most knowledge available with a few keystrokes. Having deductive reasoning with the same convenience feels wonderful, not dystopian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even better, edit it and place a false location.
This is a good test - the salient point is that it is fine if the LLM is confused, or even gets it wrong! But what I suspect would happen is that it would confabulate details which aren't in the photo to justify the incorrect EXIF answer. This is not fine.
I don’t understand the “dystopian” angle. Maybe I’m just old, but I remember the wonder when the Internet made most knowledge available with a few keystrokes. Having deductive reasoning with the same convenience feels wonderful, not dystopian.
Yes, I'm very very very scared. /s
Crazy that this is even allowed.
Who the hell needs to know the precise location of a picture, besides law enforcement? A rough location is most of the time sufficient. Like a region, a state, or a landscape (e.g., when you see the Bing background pictures, it's nice to see where they were taken).
This tool will give a boost to all those creeps out there that can have access to one or two pictures.
Why is it dystopian? It's a nice utility. The tool is just intelligence. Intelligence itself is not dystopian or utopian. It's what you use it for that makes it so.
Why is it dystopian? It's a nice utility. The tool is just intelligence. Intelligence itself is not dystopian or utopian. It's what you use it for that makes it so.
Those who say it is "utopian" are also okay with: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear". It is dystopian.
Some things are just tools that will be used for both good and bad.
Why is it dystopian? It's a nice utility. The tool is just intelligence. Intelligence itself is not dystopian or utopian. It's what you use it for that makes it so.
please accidentally post an identifying photo of your neighborhood...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that dishonesty/misalignment doesn't make sense for o3, which is not capable of being honest because it's not capable of understanding what words mean. It's like saying a monkey at a typewriter is being dishonest if it happens to write a falsehood.
You seem to be saying that only sentient beings can lie, which is too semantic for my tastes. But AI models can certainly 1) provide incorrect information, and even 2) reason that providing incorrect information is the best course of action.
In 2023 OpenAI co-authored an excellent paper on LLMs disseminating conspiracy theories - sorry, don't have the link handy. But a result that stuck with me: if you train a bidirectional transformer LLM where half the information about 9/11 is honest and half is conspiracy theories, it has a 50-50 chance of telling you one or the other if you ask about 9/11. It is not smart enough to tell there is an inconsistency. This extends to reasoning traces vs its "explanations": it does not understand its own reasoning steps and is not smart enough to notice if the explanation is inconsistent.