RatGPT
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 16 hours ago (7 children)

Man, they sure did bury the lede on how the models were being given the goal of "american competitiveness", and the company assigned the blame for the simulated shutoffs as being replacement with a foreign-developed LLM. That, along with the fact that anthropic released this themselves, plus the fact that they did so as (at that time) the primary LLM provider to the US government, and only seven months later they were blackballed by trump for supposedly refusing to grant full autonomy to their systems, tells quite the story: it seems clear that, in the article you linked, they were gently warning the government, while pointing out how "look! The reason the AI blackmailed the guy was because he wasn't patriotic enough!!!"

I don't trust their motivations, and am not going to believe their LLM's supposed "thought process" for shit, because it's still nothing more than a Chinese room. You're just asking the Chinese room to generate "justifications" related to the responses it gives, which are still only generated responses, not "thoughts".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago (6 children)

    The American competitiveness angle is definitely.. well an interesting choice; I also was taken aback by that. Ignoring some of the posturing along those lines I find the post itself interesting.

    If you think the Chinese room idea is valid we probably just fundamentally disagree and that's OK.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (5 children)

    Fundamentally disagree that an LLM is nothing more and nothing less than a very advanced next-word-prediction algorithm, you know, the scientific basis of an LLM?

    I was using "Chinese Room" to indicate that it's a black box, and even the developers are incapable of pinpointing the statistical basis behind any given response, despite it being a stochastically-generated choice from an ultimately deterministic algorithm.

    I.e. are you claiming that LLMs have attained sapience as a purely emergent property?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

    I claim ignorance as to whether they have or not, but I am fully on board with intelligence as an emergent property and believe that there is no reason a machine can't think, yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

    Understand: I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of intelligence as an emergent property (or I wouldn't have brought it up), and don't think it impossible to achieve AGI. I do contend that this route, of nothing but token input without true correlative context, is a non-starter for such. Making something better and better at predicting what comes next is not going to suddenly create a jump to application in unrelated fields or grant context. Statistical correlation is insufficient to generate actual meaning, no matter how many times you provide feedback on the inference. It doesn't have any actual connection to anything other than text (or hex codes, or other such tokens). If constant hallucinations (demonstrating the lack of any understanding of context) are insufficient to prove this to you, I suppose there is a fundamental difference in the way you understand how LLMs function.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 14 hours ago* (2 children)

    I understand fairly well how LLMs work, but I don't think we understand the conditions for the emergence of intelligence or thought enough to conclude that "learning to predict what comes next" is not sufficient to create some form of intelligence, that's all. [Edit: if we determine that that turns out to be sufficient I will be surprised] That uncertainty is sufficient to make me agnostic on the subject and that stance does have an effect on my actions, for example I'm never mean to an LLM.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 14 hours ago (1 child)

    I'm only mean to LLMs when they're being used to pose online as a troll. Given that that's the only time I ever interact with an LLM anymore, though...

    Either way, emerging subintelligence or not, they're being used in ways such that they are, all of them, a scourge on the planet and on humans' abilities to think for themselves, and should be eradicated and banned for those reasons alone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment