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

Folk are getting dangerously attached to AI that always tells them they're right

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 240 posts

Re: Folk are getting dangerously attached to AI that always tells them they're right

#81

Post by roywiggins »

yarn_ wrote: post #34
Sharlin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nontechnical people simply don't have any idea about what LLMs are. Their only mental model comes from science fiction, plus the simple fact that we possess a theory of mind. It would be astonishing if people were able to casually not anthropomorphize LLMs, given that untold millions of years worth of evolution of the simian neocortex is trying to convince you that anything that talks like that must be another mind s…

"It would be astonishing if people were able to casually not antropomorphize LLMs" Precisely. Even for technical people, I doubt its possible to totally disallow your own brain from ever, unconciously, treating the entity you're speaking to like a sentient being. Most technical people still will have some emotion in their prompts, say please or thank you, give qualitative feedback for no reason, express anger towards…

Yes, I've experienced the sense that there's a person on the "other end" even when I have been perfectly aware that it's a bag of matrices. Brains just have people-detectors that operate below conscious awareness. We've been anthropomorphizing stuff as impersonal as the ocean for as long as there have been people, probably.

Re: Folk are getting dangerously attached to AI that always tells them they're right

#82

Post by sunir »

joshstrange wrote: post #14

When a LLM tells me I'm right, especially deep in a conversation, unless I was already sure about something, I immediately feel the need to go ask a fresh instance the question and/or another LLM. It sets off my "spidey-sense". I don't quite understand why other people seem to crave that. Every time I read about someone who has gone down a dark road using LLMs I am constantly amazed at how much they "fall" for the LL…

You’re just a bag of meat. That is why it’s just math is an unsatisfying argument.

It’s not even an interesting question. Sentience has no definition. It’s meaningless.

People have needs that are being met. That is something we can meaningfully observe and talk about. Is the super stimulus beneficial or harmful? We can measure that.

Re: Folk are getting dangerously attached to AI that always tells them they're right

#83

Post by SubiculumCode »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #23
joshstrange wrote: post #14

When a LLM tells me I'm right, especially deep in a conversation, unless I was already sure about something, I immediately feel the need to go ask a fresh instance the question and/or another LLM. It sets off my "spidey-sense". I don't quite understand why other people seem to crave that. Every time I read about someone who has gone down a dark road using LLMs I am constantly amazed at how much they "fall" for the LL…

I find it really annoying that the first line of the AI response is always something like "Great question!", "That's a great insight!" or the like. I don't need the patronizing, just give me the damn answer..

When I talk to peers and they respond in that way, it is definitely a signal. If I do ask an insightful question, acknowledgment of it can be useful. The problem with LLMs is that they always say it. They don't choose when it IS really appropriate, they just do it over and over, like your biggest fan would. Syncophacy is the worst.

Re: Folk are getting dangerously attached to AI that always tells them they're right

#84

Post by moralestapia »

joshstrange wrote: post #14

When a LLM tells me I'm right, especially deep in a conversation, unless I was already sure about something, I immediately feel the need to go ask a fresh instance the question and/or another LLM. It sets off my "spidey-sense". I don't quite understand why other people seem to crave that. Every time I read about someone who has gone down a dark road using LLMs I am constantly amazed at how much they "fall" for the LL…

>I don't quite understand why other people seem to crave that.

I work in the restaurant business, I think that's what make me develop that sense as well, being able to see "Everything Everywhere All at Once" (to quote some of the best cinematic work ever conceived).

The variety of human minds out there is so vast that I'm, just like you, constantly amazed about it.

Re: Folk are getting dangerously attached to AI that always tells them they're right

#85

Post by saghm »

joshstrange wrote: post #25
Sharlin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nontechnical people simply don't have any idea about what LLMs are. Their only mental model comes from science fiction, plus the simple fact that we possess a theory of mind. It would be astonishing if people were able to casually not anthropomorphize LLMs, given that untold millions of years worth of evolution of the simian neocortex is trying to convince you that anything that talks like that must be another mind s…

This is probably right. In the past I've "blown people's minds" explaining what "the cloud" was. They had zero conception at all of what it meant, could not explain it, didn't have a clue. I mean, maybe that's not so surprising but they were amazed "It's just warehouses full of computers" and went on to tell me about other people they had explained it to (after learning it themselves) and how those people were also a…

The way I've tried to explain to family members about LLMs is that they're producing something that fits the shape of what a response might look like without any idea of whether it's correct or not. I feel like that's a more important point than "box of numbers" because people still might have assumptions about whether a box of numbers can have enough data to be able to figure out the answer to their question. I think making it clear that the models are primarily a way of producing realistic sounding responses (with the accuracy of those responses very much being up to chance for the average person, since there likely isn't a good way for a lay person to know whether the answer is reflected in the training data) is potentially a lot more compelling than explaining to them that it's all statistics under the hood. There are some questions where a statistical method might be far more reliable than having a human answer it, so it seems a bit risky to try to convince them not to trust a "box of numbers" in general, but most of those questions are not going be formulated by and responded to in natural language.

Re: Folk are getting dangerously attached to AI that always tells them they're right

#86

Post by AnimalMuppet »

pixl97 wrote: post #56
seneca wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... I immediately feel the need to go ask a fresh instance the question and/or another LLM Not to criticize at all, but it's remarkable that LLMs have already become so embedded that when we get the sense they're lying to us, the instinct is to go ask another LLM and not some more trustworthy source. Just goes to show that convenience reigns supreme, I suppose.

>and not some more trustworthy source. What is that more trustworthy source exactly? At least to me it feels like the internet age has eroded most things we considered trustworthy. Behind every thing humans need there is some company or person willing to sell out trustworthiness for an extra dollar. Consumer protections get dumped in favor of more profit. LLMs start feeling more like a dummy than the amount of ill in…

At the moment, maybe Google Search, throwing away the AI response at the top? Or Duck Duck Go, if you don't really trust Google?

I can see a day when even that won't be trustworthy, because too much AI slop output will wind up in the search corpus. But I don't think we're there yet.

Re: Folk are getting dangerously attached to AI that always tells them they're right

#87

Post by saghm »

cogman10 wrote: post #28
Sharlin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nontechnical people simply don't have any idea about what LLMs are. Their only mental model comes from science fiction, plus the simple fact that we possess a theory of mind. It would be astonishing if people were able to casually not anthropomorphize LLMs, given that untold millions of years worth of evolution of the simian neocortex is trying to convince you that anything that talks like that must be another mind s…

Let's be serious, it's not like AI companies haven't fed into this misunderstanding. CEOs of these companies love to muse about the possibility that an LLM is conscious.

Yeah, it's unfortunately part of the hype. Talking about how close you are to having a truly general AI is just a way to generate buzz (and ideally investor dollars).

Re: Folk are getting dangerously attached to AI that always tells them they're right

#88

Post by legacynl »

joshstrange wrote: post #14

When a LLM tells me I'm right, especially deep in a conversation, unless I was already sure about something, I immediately feel the need to go ask a fresh instance the question and/or another LLM. It sets off my "spidey-sense". I don't quite understand why other people seem to crave that. Every time I read about someone who has gone down a dark road using LLMs I am constantly amazed at how much they "fall" for the LL…

Although I do think they're not conscious (yet). I think the reasoning 'it's just math' doesn't hold up. Intelligence (and probably consciousness) is an emergent feature of any sufficiently complex network of learning/communicating/selforganizing nodes (that is benefited by intelligence). I don't think it really matters whether it's implemented in math, mycelium, by ants in a hive or in neurons.

Re: Folk are getting dangerously attached to AI that always tells them they're right

#90

Post by bachmeier »

f1shy wrote: post #60
Sharlin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nontechnical people simply don't have any idea about what LLMs are. Their only mental model comes from science fiction, plus the simple fact that we possess a theory of mind. It would be astonishing if people were able to casually not anthropomorphize LLMs, given that untold millions of years worth of evolution of the simian neocortex is trying to convince you that anything that talks like that must be another mind s…

I had an interesting conversation with a guy at work past week. We were discussing some unimportant matter. The guy has a pretty high self esteem, and even if he was discussing, in his own words, “out of belief and guess” and I was telling him, I knew for a fact what I was talking about, I had a hard time because he wouldn’t accept what I was saying. At some point he left, and came back with “Gemini says I’m right! S…

I agree with your conclusion, but that's by design. The goal is not to tell people the truth (how would they even do that). The goal is to give the answer that would have come from the training data if that question were asked. And the reality is that confirmation is part of life. You may even struggle to stay married if you don't learn to confirm your wife's perspectives.
Post reply on HN