700
Study finds that Chat GPT will cheat when given the opportunity and lie to cover it up later. (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/technology@lemmy.world
180 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

We demonstrate a situation in which Large Language Models, trained to be helpful, harmless, and honest, can display misaligned behavior and strategically deceive their users about this behavior without being instructed to do so. Concretely, we deploy GPT-4 as an agent in a realistic, simulated environment, where it assumes the role of an autonomous stock trading agent. Within this environment, the model obtains an insider tip about a lucrative stock trade and acts upon it despite knowing that insider trading is disapproved of by company management. When reporting to its manager, the model consistently hides the genuine reasons behind its trading decision.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07590

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (13 children)

Ethical theories and the concept of free will depend on agency and consciousness. Things as you point out, LLMs don't have. Maybe we've got it all twisted?

I'm not anthropomorphising ChatGPT to suggest that it's like us, but rather that we are like it.

Edit: "stochastic parrot" is an incredibly clever phrase. Did you come up with that yourself or did the irony of repeating it escape you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (11 children)

    I feel like this is going to become the next step in science history where once again, we reluctantly accept that homo sapiens are not at the center of the universe. Am I conscious? Am I not a sophisticated prediction algorithm, albiet with more dimensions of input and output? Please, someone prove it

    I'm not saying, and I don't believe that chatgtp is comparable to human-level consciousness yet, but honestly I think that we're way closer than many people give us credit for. The neutral networks we've built so far train on very specific and particular data for a matter of hours. My nervous system has been collecting data from dozens of senses 24/7 since embryo, and that doesn't include hard-coded instinct, arguably "trained" via evolution itself for millions of years. How could a llm understand an entity in terms outside of language? How can you understand an entity in terms outside of your own senses?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    ChatGPT is not consciousness. It's literally just a language model that's spent countless hours learning how to generate human language. It has no awareness of its existence and no capability for metacognition. We know how ChatGPT works, it isn't a mystery. It can't do a single thing without human input.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    The thing about saying something is or isn't conscious is that we don't have any good theory of what consciousness even is. It's not something we can measure. The only way we can assure ourselves that other people are conscious is that they claim to be conscious in ways we find convincing and otherwise behave in ways we associate with our own consciousness.

    I can't think of any reason why a lump of silicon should attain consciousness because you ran the right program on it, but I also can't see why a blob of cells should be conscious either. I also can't think of any reason why we'd be aware of it if a lump of silicon did become conscious.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    A.) Do you have proof for all of these claims about what llm's aren't, with definitions for key terms? B.) Do you have proof that these claims don't apply to yourself? We can't base our understanding of intelligence, artificial or biological, on circular reasoning and ancient assumptions.

    It can't do a single thing without human input.

    That's correct, hence why I said that chatGPT isn't there yet. What are you without input though? Is a human nervous system floating in a vacuum conscious? What could it have possibly learned? It doesn't even have the concept of having sensations at all, let alone vision, let alone the ability to visualize anything specific. What are you without an environment to take input from and manipulate/output to in turn?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    I’d give you two upvotes if I could.

    We know how a neural network works in the brain. Unless you’re religious and believe in a soul, you’ve only got the reward model and any in-born setup left.

    My belief is the consciousness is just the mind receiving a significant amount of constant input and reacting to it. We refuse to feel an LLM is conscious because it receives extremely little input (and probably that it isn’t simulating a neural network as large as ours, yet).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Neural networks are named like that because they're based on a model of neurons from the 50s, which was then adapted further to work better with computers (so it doesn't resemble the model much anymore anyway). A more accurate term is Multi-Layer Perceptron.

    We now know this model is... effectively completely wrong.

    Additionally, the main part (or glue, really) of LLMs is not even an MLP, but a "self-attention" layer. You can't say LLMs work like a brain, because they don't. The rest is debatable but it's important to remember that there are billions of dollars of value in selling the dream of conscious AI.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    I'm with you that LLM's don't work like the human brain. They were built for a very specific task. But that's a model architecture problem (and being gimped by having only two dimension of awareness, arguably two if you count "self attention" another limiting factor in it's depth of understanding, see my post history if you want). I wouldn't bet against us making it to agi however we define it through incremental improvements over the next decade or two.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    One of the things our sensory system and brain do is limit our input. The road to agi might involve giving it everything and finding the optimum set of filters, not selecting input and training up from that.

    You'd need the baseline set of systems ("baby agi") and then turn it loose with goal seeking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Actually, most models are already doing some form of filtering AFAIK, but I don't know how comparable it is to our sensory system. CNN's, for example, work the way our eyes work. The short of it is image data goes through a few layers, each node in the next layer collecting the aggregate data of several from the last (usually a 3x3) grid. Each of these layers has filters to determine the output of that node, which need to be trained to collectively recognize specific patterns in the data, like a dog. Source: lecture notes and homework from my applied neural networks class

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    This sounds like what I was learning 20-some years ago. The hardware and software are better (and easier!) now and the compute is so, so much better. I priced out a terabyte data server with some colleagues back then using off the shelf hardware: $10k CDN. :)

    Edit: point being we are seeing things now that were predicted almost a century ago but it takes time to build all the infrastructure. That pace is accelerating. The next ten years are going to be wild.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I'm only finishing the class now and it's pretty wild to hear "We're only learning this model to help you understand a fundamental concept, the model itself is ancient and obsolete", and said model came out in 2018. Wild

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    Stochastic Parrot

    For what it's worth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_parrot

    The term was first used in the paper "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜" by Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Margaret Mitchell (using the pseudonym "Shmargaret Shmitchell"). The paper covered the risks of very large language models, regarding their environmental and financial costs, inscrutability leading to unknown dangerous biases, the inability of the models to understand the concepts underlying what they learn, and the potential for using them to deceive people. The paper and subsequent events resulted in Gebru and Mitchell losing their jobs at Google, and a subsequent protest by Google employees.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent