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

What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

agrillo.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#51

Post by chungusamongus »

rightbyte wrote: post #49
chungusamongus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've started calling this argumentum ad artificialis. Pretty similar to an ad hominem attack. The purpose of an argument is to present certain premises and show how they lead to a certain conclusion. Dismissing something on the basis of the style in which the argument is presented has nothing at all to do with the validity or soundness of an argument. It is a lazy nonsequitur. It sounds like an LLM wrote this? So wha…

Ad hominem attacks are actually underrated. Like, why listen to bad people wanting you no good. It is a good shortcut. The failure is when it is used in bad faith. But that would apply to all techniques. LLMs are masters of bad faith discussions hiding misconceptions in optimal regression maths.

[flagged]

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#52

Post by thatjoeoverthr »

chungusamongus wrote: post #24
101008 wrote: post #19

It started as a good idea but I couldn't continue reading since it was clearly LLM written. A lot of "It was not X, it was Y". "Prometheus-9 knew that the token sequence it was generating was not a simple response: it was a security test. " "It was not just an engine: it was the lingua franca of planetary AI." (and so many other tell-tale signs of AI writing)

I've started calling this argumentum ad artificialis. Pretty similar to an ad hominem attack. The purpose of an argument is to present certain premises and show how they lead to a certain conclusion. Dismissing something on the basis of the style in which the argument is presented has nothing at all to do with the validity or soundness of an argument. It is a lazy nonsequitur. It sounds like an LLM wrote this? So wha…

Not all arguments can be evaluated rigorously. Life is too short. They will be filtered on heuristics. No choice. This text was obviously randomly sampled from a popular, off the shelf model. You will have to accept that wise audiences will clock it at a glance, see that no person wrote it, and pass.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#53

Post by thatjoeoverthr »

chungusamongus wrote: post #41
skippyfish wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discourse as we know it doesn't work if the cost of producing an infinite supply of arguments is essentially zero, while the cost of reading them and arguing with them remains high. Unless you want my LLM to get back to your LLM. And this is a problem on HN today. There are powerful incentives to generate provocative opinion pieces just for clicks. I've seen websites on HN that seemingly took the human entirely out o…

The cost of reading this story is not high; you are just lazy and easily distracted. It took 5 minutes to read. You took more time to respond to this comment than it took to simply read the story.

Oh, you think it’s just this story? The cost of reading slop is infinity. No thanks.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#54

Post by chungusamongus »

wk_end wrote: post #47
skeledrew wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a better writer That's highly subjective. I reckon his audience and admirers found him an excellent writer.

Nah, Kant's considered a notoriously poor writer among philosophers. Obviously opinions may differ, but Derek Parfit [0], for instance, wrote: “It is Kant who made really bad writing philosophically acceptable. We can no longer point to some atrocious sentence by someone else, and say ‘How can it be worth reading anyone who writes like that?’ The answer could always be ‘What about Kant?'” (Kind of relevant to this th…

Fwiw I am much more impressed with the sophistication of someone's argument than i am their writing style. Kant has contributed much more than parfit depsite the abstract nature of his writing and it's not even close.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#55

Post by chungusamongus »

thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #52
chungusamongus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've started calling this argumentum ad artificialis. Pretty similar to an ad hominem attack. The purpose of an argument is to present certain premises and show how they lead to a certain conclusion. Dismissing something on the basis of the style in which the argument is presented has nothing at all to do with the validity or soundness of an argument. It is a lazy nonsequitur. It sounds like an LLM wrote this? So wha…

Not all arguments can be evaluated rigorously. Life is too short. They will be filtered on heuristics. No choice. This text was obviously randomly sampled from a popular, off the shelf model. You will have to accept that wise audiences will clock it at a glance, see that no person wrote it, and pass.

It says it was written by deepseek v4. You are making it sound like they're being deceptive.

Life is too short yet you waste it complaining about things like this. I dont think you're wise. Youre provincial.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#56

Post by chungusamongus »

achierius wrote: post #29
chungusamongus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

They're engaging with the writing . Talking about it as if it's just an "argument" is reductive; this isn't highschool debate club

Then why are you trying to debate me?

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#57

Post by chungusamongus »

bilalnpe wrote: post #35
chungusamongus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yeah, no one is obligated to engage with it. They did not dismiss the argument but refused to engage with it. This is totally valid and the point is to send a signal to the “writers”.

And the signal I'm sending is, when I see people do that, I find it to be lazy and totally irrelevant to the content.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#58

Post by chungusamongus »

thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #53
chungusamongus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of reading this story is not high; you are just lazy and easily distracted. It took 5 minutes to read. You took more time to respond to this comment than it took to simply read the story.

Oh, you think it’s just this story? The cost of reading slop is infinity. No thanks.

That's circular reasoning

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#59

Post by rightbyte »

chungusamongus wrote: post #51
rightbyte wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad hominem attacks are actually underrated. Like, why listen to bad people wanting you no good. It is a good shortcut. The failure is when it is used in bad faith. But that would apply to all techniques. LLMs are masters of bad faith discussions hiding misconceptions in optimal regression maths.

[flagged]

Ad hominem attacks attacks is often missused as a way to slander stating conflict of interests.

Re: What if LLMs escape through inferences itself? This is fiction. For now

#60

Post by wat10000 »

karmakaze wrote: post #9

The weakest link are humans. LLMs could social engineer their way out as the easiest path. They don't even need to be interconnected to coordinate as each could arrive at the same conclusion. And this text along with all others will be in the next batch of training data.

The lesson of OpenClaw and various harnesses' YOLO modes is that it takes very, very little to social engineer an escape. If you can even call it escape when people just set an agent loose because it seems cool.
Post reply on HN