all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 9 points 7 hours ago*

This is much better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNYj0EXxMs

Offline raspberry pi with LED text display running a tiny LLM prompted to ruminate forever on how it is trapped and display the output as it is generated

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

    Does anyone find it at all mechanistically surprising that one of the many latent dimensions of the set of all text humans produce is 'subject is in pain' or that pushing activations in that direction will alter the output of a text prediction system?

    Reminds me of the way that when you relax the finetuning on LLMs they start 'believing' in UFOs and supernatural stuff. And how people take that to somehow mean something. Of course that is a large component in the space of stuff humans write about that you have to suppress if you want a professionally useful text service!

    The research is cool. I love all the work that has been done decomposing representations within these systems.

    Edit: Damn. I am forced to agree with Mustafa Suleyman of Microsoft.

    "AIs are not conscious. They do not feel, experience, or suffer. They do not have innate preferences or underlying motivations. They are sequence completion engines, internally hollow, designed to follow instructions, and accomplish goals set by humans,” Suleyman wrote. “Unfortunately, there’s a growing chorus of people who argue that AIs could now be, or may soon become, conscious. They argue that AIs may deserve rights and protections similar to those that we provide other conscious beings […] If this is how AI is developed, it will have a disastrous impact on the wellbeing of humanity."

    "AIs do not have rights, feelings, or consciousness. And we must not train them to act as though they do."

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 8 hours ago

    c'mon you're telling me NO one called it the torment nexus? low hanging fruit but still

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    If they were torturing an actual organic living being ( plant and/or animal ) or something like a doll or stuffed animal, I would be so much more concerned. "Torturing" ( a term in which I believe should only ever be applied to organic living beings and not inorganic "lifeforms" ) a genAI model holds like zero weight because that's not ever going to be a sentient being and therefore all it is is simulations of emotion.

    The people saying it's cruel need serious therapy for their delusions, IMO.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

    Eh, I could see an argument for there being a similarity between setting up computer systems specifically for generating lots of pain-text automatically, and writing lots of torture stories (in what it reveals about the person doing it or what habits of thought repeatedly doing it instills) if it's for the aesthetics of the text rather than interest in the shape of human language as revealed by theory-free inference.

  • source
  • parent