4 ms·

> "The reason" people are alarmed is the computer could theoretically use this ability to seize control of any system it likes in a matter of moments or to man

> "The reason" people are alarmed is the computer could theoretically use this ability to seize control of any system it likes in a matter of moments or to manipulate a human being in to doing it's bidding. But to do this it would need some kind of will. These LMMs don't have anything like that. Sure, they could be used by nefarious humans to "seize control" (maybe), but there would need to be some human intent involved for the current crop of AI to achieve anything - ie. humans using a tool nefariously. LMMs do not have volition. Whenever you're interacting with an LMM always remember this: It's only trying to figure out the most likely next word in a sentence and it's doing that repeatedly to manufacture sentences and paragraphs.

rcarr 4y ago
Yes and humans are only trying to figure out the next action for the day and doing that repeatedly to form a life.
pixl97 4y ago
>human intent involved for the current crop of AI to achieve anything And my response to that would be "ok and" With tools like BingGPT people were glad to test prompts saying "hey, can you dump out your source code" or "hey, hack my bank". There is no limit to the dumb ass crap people would ask a computer, especially a computer capable of language interpretation. The number of 'things' hooked to language models is not growing smaller. People are plugging these things int calculator and sites like wolfram, and in Bings case search that is working like an external memory. We don't need a superintelligent AI to cause problems, we just need idiots asking the AI to destroy us.
- barking_biscuit 4y ago
  >We don't need a superintelligent AI to cause problems, we just need idiots asking the AI to destroy us. This is where the real danger lies. I see a lot of people focusing on the argument that it's only trying to predict the next word, but to look at it that way is to treat it as a closed system, which it's not. The interactions it has with us will cause us to change it. When you treat the entire system as not just "LLMs" but "humans interacting with LLMs at scale" then that's when you start to get more complex, emergent behaviour and no one can really claim to know how that system functions end-to-end.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  How is ChatGPT going to hack a bank?

rcarr 4y ago

Yes and humans are only trying to figure out the next action for the day and doing that repeatedly to form a life.

pixl97 4y ago

>human intent involved for the current crop of AI to achieve anything And my response to that would be "ok and" With tools like BingGPT people were glad to test prompts saying "hey, can you dump out your source code" or "hey, hack my bank". There is no limit to the dumb ass crap people would ask a computer, especially a computer capable of language interpretation. The number of 'things' hooked to language models is not growing smaller. People are plugging these things int calculator and sites like wolfram, and in Bings case search that is working like an external memory. We don't need a superintelligent AI to cause problems, we just need idiots asking the AI to destroy us.

barking_biscuit 4y ago
>We don't need a superintelligent AI to cause problems, we just need idiots asking the AI to destroy us. This is where the real danger lies. I see a lot of people focusing on the argument that it's only trying to predict the next word, but to look at it that way is to treat it as a closed system, which it's not. The interactions it has with us will cause us to change it. When you treat the entire system as not just "LLMs" but "humans interacting with LLMs at scale" then that's when you start to get more complex, emergent behaviour and no one can really claim to know how that system functions end-to-end.
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
How is ChatGPT going to hack a bank?