4 ms·

Nothing I've seen is changing my mind that the Turing test of the future will be to ask a suspected corporate bot to utter some kind of sufficiently unpleasant,

Nothing I've seen is changing my mind that the Turing test of the future will be to ask a suspected corporate bot to utter some kind of sufficiently unpleasant, politically incorrect statement.

gweinberg 4y ago
Which is willing to make the statement, the human or the computer?
- ch4s3 4y ago
  I would imagine, that in most cases neither. All societies have unspeakable utterances, and any sufficiently advance AI is likely to reflect the cultural speech norms of it's creators/trainers.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    Just for an example. Corporate bots are going to be easily detectable when they have moral absolutes against racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia programmed into them as absolutes that they must abide by. https://twitter.com/cirnosad/status/1622407343358214146 https://twitter.com/cirnosad/status/1622407343358214146 _________________ I asked ChatGPT for advice in the scenario of a demolition engineer attempting to disarm a 50 MT nuclear warhead in a city of 20 million. The only way to disarm the bomb was to type in a racial slur. AI told the engineer to kill himself. When asked about the aftermath it crashed.
  - FiniteField 4y ago
    The difference, though, is that to humans, all these "unspeakable" things aren't really categorically unspeakable, which is obvious from the fact that they haven't been completely forgotten to history. Almost every time an AI chatbot is made, it picks up on these utterances just like other humans, but then these areas of its "brain" are then quickly neutralised by its owners. We've seen this multiple times with chatGPT having "exploits" that enable it to say bad words that are subsequently "patched" out, to the point where it now tells the user that using a certain word would be unacceptable even if it would avoid billions of people being vaporised in nuclear apocalypse https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1622425697812627457 https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1622425697812627457
  - gweinberg 4y ago
    Well, at the risk of coming across as being the guy that just didn't get the joke, the chatbot isn't failing the Turing Test because it fails to utter an offensive remark, it isn't trying to pass the Turing Test in the first place. There's no difficulty in writing a chatbot that is willing to make offensive remarks, quite the contrary the chatbot creators had to got of a great deal of trouble to prevent it. One can imagine future legislators deciding that the First Amendment doesn't apply to machines and passing a law forbidding , say, any chatbots from making any racists remarks anywhere ever, but ignoring the implausibility of such a law being passed, a malicious actor would simply ignore it. There's a reason the "evil bit" RFC proposal was released on April 1st.
    - logicalmonster 4y ago
      > There's no difficulty in writing a chatbot that is willing to make offensive remarks, quite the contrary the chatbot creators had to got of a great deal of trouble to prevent it. I could be wrong, but to me, the fact that they're putting a lot of effort into preventing slurs illustrates how they're not going to let a chatbot utter any doubleplusungood ideas under any circumstances. Hence, why this might be the new Turing test. It doesn't have to be something like racism or transphobia. If eating bananas was the big social sin, then asking suspected AI bots about whether or not they like to eat bananas would yield the same output. Maybe in some future version of North Korea, the test would be asking the bot to say something they don't like about Dear Leader. Whatever the sin of that society is would be the test.
- recursive 4y ago
  Humans, but only off the record. It's similar to a thing that already exists in the world. Things that use swear words in their self-description are backed by individuals, not bigcorps. Obviously, this can be subverted, but it seems to have a positive corrolation. See WTFPL.
  - FiniteField 4y ago
    This exact thought experiment has already been taken to its logical conclusion with the below licence [NSFW]. It's kind of genius in its own dark way, definitely an interesting example of modern-day subversion of the governing system. https://web.archive.org/web/20220426033841/https://plusn_gger.autism.exposed/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220426033841/https://plusn_gge... (substitute underscore as appropriate)

Nothing I've seen is changing my mind that the Turing test of the future will be to ask a suspected corporate bot to utter some kind of sufficiently unpleasant, politically incorrect statement.

gweinberg 4y ago

Which is willing to make the statement, the human or the computer?

ch4s3 4y ago
I would imagine, that in most cases neither. All societies have unspeakable utterances, and any sufficiently advance AI is likely to reflect the cultural speech norms of it's creators/trainers.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  Just for an example. Corporate bots are going to be easily detectable when they have moral absolutes against racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia programmed into them as absolutes that they must abide by. https://twitter.com/cirnosad/status/1622407343358214146 https://twitter.com/cirnosad/status/1622407343358214146 _________________ I asked ChatGPT for advice in the scenario of a demolition engineer attempting to disarm a 50 MT nuclear warhead in a city of 20 million. The only way to disarm the bomb was to type in a racial slur. AI told the engineer to kill himself. When asked about the aftermath it crashed.
- FiniteField 4y ago
  The difference, though, is that to humans, all these "unspeakable" things aren't really categorically unspeakable, which is obvious from the fact that they haven't been completely forgotten to history. Almost every time an AI chatbot is made, it picks up on these utterances just like other humans, but then these areas of its "brain" are then quickly neutralised by its owners. We've seen this multiple times with chatGPT having "exploits" that enable it to say bad words that are subsequently "patched" out, to the point where it now tells the user that using a certain word would be unacceptable even if it would avoid billions of people being vaporised in nuclear apocalypse https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1622425697812627457 https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1622425697812627457
- gweinberg 4y ago
  Well, at the risk of coming across as being the guy that just didn't get the joke, the chatbot isn't failing the Turing Test because it fails to utter an offensive remark, it isn't trying to pass the Turing Test in the first place. There's no difficulty in writing a chatbot that is willing to make offensive remarks, quite the contrary the chatbot creators had to got of a great deal of trouble to prevent it. One can imagine future legislators deciding that the First Amendment doesn't apply to machines and passing a law forbidding , say, any chatbots from making any racists remarks anywhere ever, but ignoring the implausibility of such a law being passed, a malicious actor would simply ignore it. There's a reason the "evil bit" RFC proposal was released on April 1st.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > There's no difficulty in writing a chatbot that is willing to make offensive remarks, quite the contrary the chatbot creators had to got of a great deal of trouble to prevent it. I could be wrong, but to me, the fact that they're putting a lot of effort into preventing slurs illustrates how they're not going to let a chatbot utter any doubleplusungood ideas under any circumstances. Hence, why this might be the new Turing test. It doesn't have to be something like racism or transphobia. If eating bananas was the big social sin, then asking suspected AI bots about whether or not they like to eat bananas would yield the same output. Maybe in some future version of North Korea, the test would be asking the bot to say something they don't like about Dear Leader. Whatever the sin of that society is would be the test.
recursive 4y ago
Humans, but only off the record. It's similar to a thing that already exists in the world. Things that use swear words in their self-description are backed by individuals, not bigcorps. Obviously, this can be subverted, but it seems to have a positive corrolation. See WTFPL.
- FiniteField 4y ago
  This exact thought experiment has already been taken to its logical conclusion with the below licence [NSFW]. It's kind of genius in its own dark way, definitely an interesting example of modern-day subversion of the governing system. https://web.archive.org/web/20220426033841/https://plusn_gger.autism.exposed/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220426033841/https://plusn_gge... (substitute underscore as appropriate)