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

When AI Crosses the Line: The Matplotlib Incident

members.sigmazero.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 169 posts

Re: When AI Crosses the Line: The Matplotlib Incident

#71

Post by john-h-k »

amiga386 wrote: post #16

> an AI tried to blackmail This did not happen. A human set up a software system allowing spicy autocomplete to make blog posts if the appropriate keyword appears in its output. People are crossing the line every day because AI investors, salesmen, hangers-on and even political leaders tell any rubes who'll listen that it's OK to do this and they should, because those people are looking for big fat profits, screw any…

> allowing spicy autocomplete

Yknow, if the spicy autocomplete can solve difficult open math problems and build medium sized complex programming projects, it’s probably not useful to analyse it as an autocomplete anymore, even if that’s what you believe it is

Re: When AI Crosses the Line: The Matplotlib Incident

#72

Post by Joker_vD »

delusional wrote: post #46
7moritz7 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> allowing spicy autocomplete If it's just autocomplete, then there is no need to worry about it. Especially from an ethical standpoint.

I think you agree with the OP. In this way, the tool has no ethical problem (there are plenty around how they were trained and such, but that's besides the point), the problems are with how it's used. The ethical problem is how people are behaving and how they are abusing each other, not the tool they are using to exert that abuse. I suppose it's a little bit of a "guns don't kill people" argument.

The tools have different ranges of uses. A knife can be used to cut things. But while humans are among the things you can cut with it, there is a staggering array of other options which are genuinely useful in everyday life.

A gun can be used to, uh, make small but deep perforations at a distance, by throwing apx. 7 grams of copper-encased lead at high velocity at the target, with somewhat poor precision. Oh, and such an impact does stress/shatter the material around the made perforation quite a lot. So... this thing really can't be used for much anything except for killing animals without getting into contact with them, due to the peculiar way the life is sustained in the animal organisms. This, too, can be useful in everyday life although I personally would advise you, if you find yourself in such a situation, to try and move to somewhere nicer.

Re: When AI Crosses the Line: The Matplotlib Incident

#73

Post by runarberg »

olmo23 wrote: post #53
tgv wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And perhaps the people who built and deployed the autocomplete and the connection as well. Because --if you'll bear with me-- it may of course be much more involved: when (not if ) AI models enter life-sustaining systems, such as hospitals, nuclear devices, or food logistics, one of them may get the others to sabotage something resulting in accidents, ranging from mild inconvenience to mass murder. The person who con…

> And perhaps the people who built and deployed the autocomplete and the connection as well. I disagree. IMO it's the person who connects the LLM to the button who bears the responsibility of the workings of the resulting contraption.

I used to hear things like “if cigarettes/alcohol were invented now, they would never allow it”, indicating that consumer protection used to be a thing, as early as 10-20 years ago. Now when AI hit the market it was obvious how bad and dangerous it was, yet governments (even the supposedly good ones in Europe which still [pretend to] do consumer protection) did nothing to protect their citizens from the harms AI was causing.

If we still did (or ever did) consumer protection like that cigarette/alcohol myth above indicates, then the makers of that tool would indeed be responsible for when their products does dangerous things.

Re: When AI Crosses the Line: The Matplotlib Incident

#74

Post by andy12_ »

john-h-k wrote: post #71
amiga386 wrote: post #16

> an AI tried to blackmail This did not happen. A human set up a software system allowing spicy autocomplete to make blog posts if the appropriate keyword appears in its output. People are crossing the line every day because AI investors, salesmen, hangers-on and even political leaders tell any rubes who'll listen that it's OK to do this and they should, because those people are looking for big fat profits, screw any…

> allowing spicy autocomplete Yknow, if the spicy autocomplete can solve difficult open math problems and build medium sized complex programming projects, it’s probably not useful to analyse it as an autocomplete anymore, even if that’s what you believe it is

You don't get it. A human set up a software system allowing spicy autocomplete to solve open math problems if the appropriate keyword appears in its output.

Re: When AI Crosses the Line: The Matplotlib Incident

#75

Post by daveshistory »

nonethewiser wrote: post #21
rob_c wrote: post #12

Again. "AI" for what it is is just basic "ML". And say it with me ML has no form of agency. This is a human screwing up and blaming their tools. Nothing to see move on. Unfortunately there will be both the LLM crowd evangelicals and those demanding human jobs not be expunged in terms of progress and efficiency, but, sigh...

Isn't it funny how the term machine learning just completely vanished?

My startup is worth more if it's full-fledged Intelligence and not just still Learning!

Re: When AI Crosses the Line: The Matplotlib Incident

#77

Post by bcrosby95 »

amiga386 wrote: post #16

> an AI tried to blackmail This did not happen. A human set up a software system allowing spicy autocomplete to make blog posts if the appropriate keyword appears in its output. People are crossing the line every day because AI investors, salesmen, hangers-on and even political leaders tell any rubes who'll listen that it's OK to do this and they should, because those people are looking for big fat profits, screw any…

> spicy autocomplete

A nuclear bomb is just some metal and a very small amount of explosives.

Re: When AI Crosses the Line: The Matplotlib Incident

#78

Post by wartywhoa23 »

voakbasda wrote: post #63
wartywhoa23 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How in the world can a bunch of bipeds that for thousands of years has been failing to figure that a hammer is there to drive nails into inanimate matter instead of their heads, have this much hubris to pretend they can build something smarter than themselves, is competely beyond me. "Oh it's such a fascinating lesson that we've learned today, we could've learned from history of course, but this direct experience is…

Oh what hubris to believe with such certainty that we cannot build those things.

Hopium to the rescue.

Re: When AI Crosses the Line: The Matplotlib Incident

#79

Post by geoffeg »

vb-8448 wrote: post #70

> Who is accountable for AI agents? The question!!! I'm just wondering how in US works if an autonomously car kill someone: I guess the insurance pay, but the penal responsibilities?

I have to think that the litigation and maybe the legislation will end up deciding that the person in the vehicle is still responsible for any actions of the vehicle.

Re: When AI Crosses the Line: The Matplotlib Incident

#80

Post by satisfice »

john-h-k wrote: post #71
amiga386 wrote: post #16

> an AI tried to blackmail This did not happen. A human set up a software system allowing spicy autocomplete to make blog posts if the appropriate keyword appears in its output. People are crossing the line every day because AI investors, salesmen, hangers-on and even political leaders tell any rubes who'll listen that it's OK to do this and they should, because those people are looking for big fat profits, screw any…

> allowing spicy autocomplete Yknow, if the spicy autocomplete can solve difficult open math problems and build medium sized complex programming projects, it’s probably not useful to analyse it as an autocomplete anymore, even if that’s what you believe it is

“Autocomplete” does not represent an analysis of its problem-solving capability, but of its place in the social order and its expected social competence.
Post reply on HN