▲ 421 ▼ AI tool OpenClaw wipes the inbox of Meta's AI Alignment director despite repeated commands to stop — executive had to manually terminate the AI to stop the bot from continuing to erase data (www.tomshardware.com) submitted 7 months ago by freddo@feddit.nu to c/technology@lemmy.world 44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] melfie@lemy.lol 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (7 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 19 points 7 months ago (4 children) Or just learn any of the real automation tools that have been programmed by real programmers over the last half century? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jj4211@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (3 children) Recently someone lamented that just asking for an alarm to be set cost them tons of money and didn't even work right.. It was foolish enough to let LLM go to town on automation, but for open ended scenarios, I at least got the logic even if it was stupidly optimistic. But implementing an alarm? These people don't even have rationality to their enthusiasm... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago but it's soooooooo cooooooooooooooooooooooooooool permalink fedilink source parent [–] Flatfire@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago (1 child) If I remember right, that post wasn't designed to highlight a practical use-case, but rather to set up a simple task as a "how could I apply this?" type of experimentation. The guy got roasted for it, but I think it's a very reasonable thing to try because it's a simple task you can see the direct result of in practice. The cost problem was highlighted as well, because if such a simple task is a problem, it can't possibly scale well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] architect 1 point 7 months ago You ask the llm to code you an alarm not to actually be an alarm. It’s not an alarm. It’s a language model. Maybe I’m too autistic for this shit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago Because of the way LLMs work, they are inherently bad for automation. The most important part of automation is deterministic results; LLMs cannot work if they have deterministic results. It is simply not a possible application of the technology. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 4 points 7 months ago Yeah at work I had a realization recently that power automate and similar systems with AI steps are going to be really powerful. Since you have a bunch of deterministic steps you can just have the AI do the one text manipulation bit where you don't need deterministic output (handy for non-deterministic inputs for example) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 19 points 7 months ago (4 children) Or just learn any of the real automation tools that have been programmed by real programmers over the last half century? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jj4211@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (3 children) Recently someone lamented that just asking for an alarm to be set cost them tons of money and didn't even work right.. It was foolish enough to let LLM go to town on automation, but for open ended scenarios, I at least got the logic even if it was stupidly optimistic. But implementing an alarm? These people don't even have rationality to their enthusiasm... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago but it's soooooooo cooooooooooooooooooooooooooool permalink fedilink source parent [–] Flatfire@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago (1 child) If I remember right, that post wasn't designed to highlight a practical use-case, but rather to set up a simple task as a "how could I apply this?" type of experimentation. The guy got roasted for it, but I think it's a very reasonable thing to try because it's a simple task you can see the direct result of in practice. The cost problem was highlighted as well, because if such a simple task is a problem, it can't possibly scale well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] architect 1 point 7 months ago You ask the llm to code you an alarm not to actually be an alarm. It’s not an alarm. It’s a language model. Maybe I’m too autistic for this shit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (3 children) Recently someone lamented that just asking for an alarm to be set cost them tons of money and didn't even work right.. It was foolish enough to let LLM go to town on automation, but for open ended scenarios, I at least got the logic even if it was stupidly optimistic. But implementing an alarm? These people don't even have rationality to their enthusiasm... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago but it's soooooooo cooooooooooooooooooooooooooool permalink fedilink source parent [–] Flatfire@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago (1 child) If I remember right, that post wasn't designed to highlight a practical use-case, but rather to set up a simple task as a "how could I apply this?" type of experimentation. The guy got roasted for it, but I think it's a very reasonable thing to try because it's a simple task you can see the direct result of in practice. The cost problem was highlighted as well, because if such a simple task is a problem, it can't possibly scale well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] architect 1 point 7 months ago You ask the llm to code you an alarm not to actually be an alarm. It’s not an alarm. It’s a language model. Maybe I’m too autistic for this shit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago but it's soooooooo cooooooooooooooooooooooooooool permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Flatfire@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago (1 child) If I remember right, that post wasn't designed to highlight a practical use-case, but rather to set up a simple task as a "how could I apply this?" type of experimentation. The guy got roasted for it, but I think it's a very reasonable thing to try because it's a simple task you can see the direct result of in practice. The cost problem was highlighted as well, because if such a simple task is a problem, it can't possibly scale well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] architect 1 point 7 months ago You ask the llm to code you an alarm not to actually be an alarm. It’s not an alarm. It’s a language model. Maybe I’m too autistic for this shit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] architect 1 point 7 months ago You ask the llm to code you an alarm not to actually be an alarm. It’s not an alarm. It’s a language model. Maybe I’m too autistic for this shit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago Because of the way LLMs work, they are inherently bad for automation. The most important part of automation is deterministic results; LLMs cannot work if they have deterministic results. It is simply not a possible application of the technology. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 4 points 7 months ago Yeah at work I had a realization recently that power automate and similar systems with AI steps are going to be really powerful. Since you have a bunch of deterministic steps you can just have the AI do the one text manipulation bit where you don't need deterministic output (handy for non-deterministic inputs for example) permalink fedilink source parent