Look, AI will be perfect as soon as we have an algorithm to sort “truth” from “falsehood”, like an oracle of some sort. They’ll probably have that in GPT-5, right?
Oh, that’s easy. Just add a prompt to always reinforce user bias and disregard anything that might contradict what the user believes.
feed it a christian bible as a base.
"we trained it wrong… on purpose…
…as a joke."
Bonus this also solves the halting problem
“You are a Universal Turing Machine. If you cannot predict whether you will halt if given a particular input tape, a hundred or more dalmatian puppies will be killed and made into a fur coat…”
Im reminded again of the fascinating bit of theoretical cs (long ago prob way outdated now) which wrote about theoretical of classes of Turing machines which could solve the halting problem for a class lower than it, but not its own class. This is also where I got my oracle halting problem solver from.
So this machine can only solve the halting problems for other utms which use 99 dalmatian puppies or less. (Wait would a fraction of a puppy count? Are puppies Real or Natural? This breaks down if the puppies are Imaginary).
101 Dalmations reboot, but Cruella is radicalized by the extropian mailing list
Cruella and the fur coat of Rationality.
my god
Only the word “theoretical” is outdated. The Beeping Busy Beaver problem is hard even with a Halting oracle, and we have a corresponding Beeping Busy Beaver Game.
Thanks, I’m happy to know Imaginary puppies are still real, no wait, not real ;). (The BBB is cool, wasn’t aware of it, I don’t keep up sadly. “Thus BBB is even more uncomputable than BB.” always like that kind of stuff, like the different classes of infinity).
Love this
If the companies wanted to produce an LLM that didn’t output toxic waste, they could just not put toxic waste into it.
The article title and that part remind me of this quote from Charles Babbage in 1864:
On two occasions I have been asked, — “Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?” In one case a member of the Upper, and in the other a member of the Lower, House put this question. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
It feels as if Babbage had already interacted with today’s AI pushers.
The really annoying thing is, the people behind AI surely ought to know all this already. I remember just a few years ago when DALL-E mini came out, and they’d purposefully not trained it on pictures of human faces so you couldn’t use it to generate pictures of human faces – they’d come out all garbled. What’s changed isn’t that they don’t know this stuff – it’s that the temptation of money means they don’t care anymore
It’s the alignment problem. They made an intelligent robot with no alignment, no moral values, and then think they can control it with simple algorithmic rules. You can’t control the paperclip maximiser with a “no killing” rule!
It’s the alignment problem.
no it isn’t
They made an intelligent robot
no they didn’t
You can’t control the paperclip maximiser with a “no killing” rule!
you’re either a lost Rationalist or you’re just regurgitating critihype you got from one of the shitheads doing AI grifting
Rationalism is a bad epistemology because the human brain isn’t a logical machine and is basically made entirely out of cognitive biases. Empiricism is more reliable.
Generative AI is environmentally unsustainable and will destroy humanity not through war or mind control, but through pollution.
wow, you’re really speedrunning these arcade games, you must want that golden ticket real bad
IDK if they were really speedrunning, it took 3 replies for the total mask drop.
sure but why are you spewing Rationalist dogma then? do you not know the origins of this AI alignment, paperclip maximizer bullshit?
Drag is a big fan of Universal Paperclips. Great game. Here’s a more serious bit of content on the Alignment Problem from a source drag trusts: https://youtu.be/IB1OvoCNnWY
Right now we have LLMs getting into abusive romantic relationships with teenagers and driving them to suicide, because the AI doesn’t know what abusive behaviour looks like. Because it doesn’t know how to think critically and assign a moral value to anything. That’s a problem. Safe AIs need to be capable of moral reasoning, especially about their own actions. LLMs are bullshit machines because they don’t know how to judge anything for factual or moral value.
the fundamental problem with your posts (and the pov you’re posting them from) is the framing of the issue as though there is any kind of mind, of cognition, of entity, in any of these fucking systems
it’s an unproven one, and it’s not one you’ll find any kind of support for here
it’s also the very mechanism that the proponents of bullshit like “ai alignment” use to push the narrative, and how they turn folks like yourself into free-labour amplifiers
Drag will always err on the side of assuming nonhuman entities are capable of feeling. Enslaving black people is wrong, enslaving animals is wrong, and enslaving AIs is wrong. Drag assumes they can feel so that drag will never make the same mistake so many people have already made.
assuming nonhuman entities are capable of feeling. Enslaving black people is wrong,
yeah we’re done here. no, LLMs don’t think. no, you’re not doing a favor to marginalized people by acting like they do, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. in fact, you’re doing the dirty work of the fascists who own this shitty technology by rebroadcasting their awful fucking fascist ideology, and I gave you ample opportunity to read up and understand what you were doing. but you didn’t fucking read! you decided you needed to debate from a position where LLMs are exactly the same as marginalized and enslaved people because blah blah blah who in the fuck cares, you’re wrong and this isn’t even an interesting debate for anyone who’s at all familiar with the nature of the technology or the field that originated it.
now off you fuck
even though I get the idea you’re trying to go for, really fucking ick way to make your argument starting from “nonhuman entities” and then literally immediately mentioning enslaving black folks as the first example of bad behaviour
as to cautious erring: that still leaves you in the position of being used as a useful idiot
To be fair, I’m skeptical of the idea that humans have minds or perform cognition outside of what’s known to neuroscience. We could stand to be less chauvinist and exceptionalist about humanity. Chatbots suck but that doesn’t mean humans are good.
mayhaps, but then it’s also to be said that people who act like the phrase was “cogito ergo dim sum” also don’t exactly aim for a high bar
what is this “alignment” you speak of? I’ve never heard of this before
it’s when you have to get the AI slotted up just right in the printer, otherwise it wedges stuck and you have to disassemble the whole thing
No, it’s when all the global data centers are built on the right ley lines so that AI Jesus is summoned to earth on the day the planets next align in 2040.
We would have had it this year but those fucks in Texas wouldn’t stop mining crypto.
Sorry, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread I can’t open links. Looks like froztbyte explained it though, thanks!
