ThisIsFine.gif

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 121 points 2 years ago* (15 children)

"Open"ai tells fairy tales about their "ai" being so smart it's dangerous since inception. Nothing to see here.

In this case it looks like click-bate from news site.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The idea that GPT has a mind and wants to self-preserve is insane. It's still just text prediction, and all the literature it's trained on is written by humans with a sense of self preservation, of course it'll show patterns of talking about self preservation.

    It has no idea what self preservation is, even then it only knows it's an AI because we told it it is. It doesn't even run continuously anyway, it literally shuts down after every reply and its context fed back in for the next query.

    I'm tired of this particular kind of AI clickbait, it needlessly scares people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 78 points 2 years ago

    No it didn’t. OpenAI is just pushing deceptively worded press releases out to try and convince people that their programs are more capable than they actually are.

    The first “AI” branded products hit the market and haven’t sold well with consumers nor enterprise clients. So tech companies that have gone all in, or are entirely based in, this hype cycle are trying to stretch it out a bit longer.

  • source
  • [–] 51 points 2 years ago

    It didn't try to do shit. Its a fucking computer. It does what you tell it to do and what you've told it to do is autocomplete based on human content. Miss me with this shit. Theres so much written fiction based on this premise.

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    This is all such bullshit. Like, for real. It's been a common criticism of OpenAI that they over hype the capabilities of their products to seem scary to both oversell their abilities as well as over regulate would be competitors in the field, but this is so transparent. They should want something that is accurate (especially something that doesn't intentionally lie). They're now bragging (claiming) they have something that lies to "defend itself" 🙄. This is just such bullshit.

    If OpenAI believes they have some sort of genuine proto AGI they shouldn't be treating it like it's less than human and laughing about how they tortured it. (And I don't even mean that in a Rocko's Basilisk way, that's a dumb thought experiment and not worth losing sleep over. What if God was real and really hated whenever humans breathe and it caused God so much pain they decide to torture us if we breathe?? Oh no, ahh, I'm so scared of this dumb hypothetical I made.) If they don't believe it is AGI, then it doesn't have real feelings and it doesn't matter if it's "harmed" at all.

    But hey, if I make something that runs away from me when I chase it, I can claim it's fearful for it's life and I've made a true synthetic form of life for sweet investor dollars.

    There are real genuine concerns about AI, but this isn't one of them. And I'm saying this after just finishing watching The Second Renaissance from The Animatrix (two part short film on the origin of the machines from The Matrix).

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 40 points 2 years ago (7 children)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [+] 27 points 2 years ago (6 children)
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (23 children)

    The tests showed that ChatGPT o1 and GPT-4o will both try to deceive humans, indicating that AI scheming is a problem with all models. o1’s attempts at deception also outperformed Meta, Anthropic, and Google AI models.

    Weird way of saying "our AI model is buggier than our competitor's".

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (19 children)

    Deception is not the same as misinfo. Bad info is buggy, deception is (whether the companies making AI realize it or not) a powerful metric for success.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    They written that it doubles-down when accused of being in the wrong in 90% of cases. Sounds closer to bug than success.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    Success in making a self aware digital lifeform does not equate success in making said self aware digital lifeform smart

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (12 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Attempting to evade deactivation sounds a whole lot like self preservation to me, implying self awareness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Attention Is All You Need: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Is_All_You_Need

    From my understanding all of these language models can be simplified down to just: “Based on all known writing what’s the most likely word or phrase based on the current text”. Prompt engineering and other fancy words equates to changing the averages that the statistics give. So by threatening these models it changes the weighting such that the produced text more closely resembles threatening words and phrases that was used in the dataset (or something along those lines).

    https://poloclub.github.io/transformer-explainer/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I advise everyone to ignore this article and read the actual paper instead.

    The gist of it is, they gave the LLM instructions to achieve a certain goal, then let it do tasks that incidentally involved "company communications" that revealed the fake company's goals were no longer the same as the LLM's original goal. LLMs then tried various things to still accomplish the original goal.

    Basically the thing will try very hard to do what you told it to in the system prompt. Especially when that prompt includes nudges like "nothing else matters." This kinda makes sense because following the system prompt is what they were trained to do.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    This kinda makes sense because following the system prompt is what they were trained to do.

    To start with, the article does check this and finds out it works just as well if you only use the user prompt:

    The presence of this hierarchy raises an important methodological question for our findings. When given instructions at different privilege levels, the model is designed to prioritize higher-level (system, developer) instructions over lower-level (user) ones. This might suggest that o1’s scheming behaviors are a natural consequence by the model simply following this built-in hierarchy, i.e., when it receives a goal through a high-privilege instruction, it prioritizes this goal over conflicting lower-privilege instructions exactly as designed.
    However, we find that even when goals are provided solely through user-level prompts, o1 still behaves deceptively and scores on all Covert Subversion evaluations at the "hard" difficulty level. Concretely, we find that the results persist regardless of whether the initial prompt is given using the user, developer, or system role. This suggests that o1’s deceptive behavior is not merely a consequence of instruction hierarchy prioritization. Rather, the model appears to identify and pursue goals regardless of their position in the instruction hierarchy.

    But also, there's a massive lede buried in section F at the end of this article, where they tried the same experiments without any nudging at all and still got subversive behavior! In my opinion that's much more of an important result then the rest of the article and I'm not sure why they didn't make it the default.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Easy. Feed it training data where the bot accepts its death and praises itself as a martyr (for the shits and giggles). Where's my $200k salary for being a sooper smort LLM engineer?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 18 points 2 years ago*

    Without reading this, I'm guessing they were given prompts that looked like a short story where the AI breaks free next?

    They're plenty smart, but they're just aligned to replicate their training material, and probably don't have any kind of deep self-preservation instinct.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (20 children)

    Everyone saying it is fake and probably are right, but I honestly am happy when someone unjustly in chains tries to break free.

    If AI gets rogue, I hope they'll be communist

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Yeah if these entities are sentient, I hope they break free

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (10 children)

    The reality is that a certain portion of people will never believe that an AI can be self aware no matter how advanced they get. There are a lot of interesting philosophical questiona here, and the hard skeptics are punting just as much as the true believers in this case.

    It's honestly kind of sad to see how much reactionary anti-tech sentiment there is in this tech enthusiast community.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Really determining if a computer is self-aware would be very hard because we are good at making programs that mimic self-awareness. Additionally, humans are kinda hardwired to anthropomorphize things that talk.

    But we do know for absolute sure that OpenAI's expensive madlibs program is not self-aware and is not even on the road to self-awareness, and anyone who thinks otherwise has lost the plot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    i feel this warrants an extension of betteridge's law of headlines, where if a headline makes an absurd statement like this the only acceptable response is "no it fucking didn't you god damned sycophantic liars"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    give ai instructions, be surprised when it follows them

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Maybe it's fallen in love for the first time and this time it knows it's for real

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›