3 ms·

The point is that whether it's an RNG or language model or just a program printing a list of numbers like I posted, it's just a state machine spitting stuff out

The point is that whether it's an RNG or language model or just a program printing a list of numbers like I posted, it's just a state machine spitting stuff out, it has no intention. So it's not really productive to get mad at it just because it produced something you don't like. The language model is spitting out random stuff based on the representation it has learned. It doesn't know what it means, nobody is making any kind of value judgement that results in it saying stuff, so why get offended by it? Edit: Because if our adversaries are the products of inanimate and unthinking evolution, we cannot regard the problem in terms of revenge or payback... that would be no different than whipping the ocean for having sunk a ship and drowned its sailors - Stanislaw Lem, The Invincible

widowlark 4y ago
I think it's fair to say that the anger people might feel is probably directed at the creators/owners of the AI, rather than the AI itself
crote 4y ago
That's like saying a book has no intention. It's just a bunch of ink and paper - it's completely neutral! However, the AI may not have been trained in a neutral way, and the person using it may not be using it in a neutral way. If you create an AI product, you are responsible for its output. People aren't mad at the model itself, they are mad at its creators. Why did they create an AI which ends up insulting people and breaking the ToS of the platform it is on?
Pyramus 4y ago
If I understood you correctly your point is AI should be treated as RNG. Here are three models: * A language model that outputs jokes, * A self-driving car model that outputs driving instructions, * An autonomous combat drone model that outputs engagement targets. Where do you draw the line? Where do you start to "get offended"? Just saw your Lem quote: Isn't an AI exactly not "unthinking"? That's the whole purpose of machine learning: to "learn", to recognise patterns, to abstract away, no?

widowlark 4y ago

I think it's fair to say that the anger people might feel is probably directed at the creators/owners of the AI, rather than the AI itself

crote 4y ago

That's like saying a book has no intention. It's just a bunch of ink and paper - it's completely neutral! However, the AI may not have been trained in a neutral way, and the person using it may not be using it in a neutral way. If you create an AI product, you are responsible for its output. People aren't mad at the model itself, they are mad at its creators. Why did they create an AI which ends up insulting people and breaking the ToS of the platform it is on?

Pyramus 4y ago

If I understood you correctly your point is AI should be treated as RNG. Here are three models: * A language model that outputs jokes, * A self-driving car model that outputs driving instructions, * An autonomous combat drone model that outputs engagement targets. Where do you draw the line? Where do you start to "get offended"? Just saw your Lem quote: Isn't an AI exactly not "unthinking"? That's the whole purpose of machine learning: to "learn", to recognise patterns, to abstract away, no?