3 ms·

ChatGPT could not provide any, fwiw, but it's an enticing idea.

Intralexical 3y ago
Maybe a machine designed specifically to produce "enticing" and "very plausible"-seeming ideas with no basis in reality is a bad idea. [1] The mention to other "malware" is spurious. This was a highly engineered/targeted attack. Mentioning "malware" just sounds plausible because your brain files the word in the same region as "RCE". Running `strace` shows `/usr/bin/uname` just calls `uname()`, which just reads out some string literals in the kernel. It is unlikely to be randomized accidentally. And deliberately signalling the presence of other hacks by making the `uname` syscall non-deterministic would be highly inefficient (Return 8 strings just for one bit of data?), highly unreliable (Check how many times to be sure?), highly visible (Human-readable, and human-targeted.), and unnecessarily difficult (Kernel-level hack?). …And now you see how much effort it takes, to even start to examine/debunk an implausible and unfounded idea that cost you seconds to prompt and OpenAI fractions of pennies to generate, which took root and seemed "plausible" and "enticing" specifically because GPT was trained in an adversarial way to exploit how us humans can fall for bullshit if it's packaged in the right way… --- 1: The word for that is "Lying". ChatGPT is a Lying Machine. Sometimes the lies line up with parts of reality, but that's more luck than intent. And it's usually still lying even in those cases, just in smaller, subtler, or less blatant ways.
- codezero 3y ago
  You can call it what you like but I’ve had plenty of hypothetical conversations with people and we never accused each other of lying. I think you are assuming that I treat GPT like an oracle rather than as a sci-fi author tripping on acid. I’m not going to submit a paper to a scientific journal treating the information as a fact but this is a public discussion forum on the Internet, so I’m happy to speculate in the open using the hallucinations of an algorithm if they seem interesting.
  - Intralexical 3y ago
    People have the neurological, sensory, and social hardware to be able to conceive of such concepts as external reality, internal biases, internal intentions, and sufficient theory of mind to be able to predict and understand your mental state and try to shape their words to honestly convey those external and internal realities— Including when the mutual internal intention itself is hypothetical or fantastical. I'm not calling LLMs lying machines just because they sometimes hallucinate and get things wrong. I'm calling them Lying Machines because they literally don't have either the hardware or progeny to be able to care about any concept of the truth, whether regarding explicit simple physical facts or about the intentions of a reciprocal conversation. They are, literally, designed, trained, and selected to fool humans so Sam Altman (and many others) can get his bag.
    - codezero 2y ago
      I find LLMs to be useful tools like any other piece of software. Prompting to get creative ideas is just like using any other software and coding it to respond with various options by say, pruning a large set of options based on a heuristic. In this case it’s a black box and the software is a bunch of words strung together. Also, I don’t pay for ChatGPT and often do this on local LLMs because it’s fun to use new technology. You seem to have an axe to grind, good for you, I think we need lots of variety of opinion and passion as a society.
      - Intralexical 2y ago
        I think it's poor form to bring the unvetted outputs of a pseudorandom algorithm to a discussion with real people who are investing their own mental effort and emotional energy. If you couldn't be bothered to have the thought, why would you expect other people to listen to you? That's the opposite of having "lots of variety of opinion and passion as a society". It's outsourcing cognition to a machine designed to emulate the most banal, superficial, and mediocre aspects of human expression.
        codezero 2y ago

Maybe a machine designed specifically to produce "enticing" and "very plausible"-seeming ideas with no basis in reality is a bad idea. [1] The mention to other "malware" is spurious. This was a highly engineered/targeted attack. Mentioning "malware" just sounds plausible because your brain files the word in the same region as "RCE". Running `strace` shows `/usr/bin/uname` just calls `uname()`, which just reads out some string literals in the kernel. It is unlikely to be randomized accidentally. And deliberately signalling the presence of other hacks by making the `uname` syscall non-deterministic would be highly inefficient (Return 8 strings just for one bit of data?), highly unreliable (Check how many times to be sure?), highly visible (Human-readable, and human-targeted.), and unnecessarily difficult (Kernel-level hack?). …And now you see how much effort it takes, to even start to examine/debunk an implausible and unfounded idea that cost you seconds to prompt and OpenAI fractions of pennies to generate, which took root and seemed "plausible" and "enticing" specifically because GPT was trained in an adversarial way to exploit how us humans can fall for bullshit if it's packaged in the right way… --- 1: The word for that is "Lying". ChatGPT is a Lying Machine. Sometimes the lies line up with parts of reality, but that's more luck than intent. And it's usually still lying even in those cases, just in smaller, subtler, or less blatant ways.

codezero 3y ago
You can call it what you like but I’ve had plenty of hypothetical conversations with people and we never accused each other of lying. I think you are assuming that I treat GPT like an oracle rather than as a sci-fi author tripping on acid. I’m not going to submit a paper to a scientific journal treating the information as a fact but this is a public discussion forum on the Internet, so I’m happy to speculate in the open using the hallucinations of an algorithm if they seem interesting.
- Intralexical 3y ago
  People have the neurological, sensory, and social hardware to be able to conceive of such concepts as external reality, internal biases, internal intentions, and sufficient theory of mind to be able to predict and understand your mental state and try to shape their words to honestly convey those external and internal realities— Including when the mutual internal intention itself is hypothetical or fantastical. I'm not calling LLMs lying machines just because they sometimes hallucinate and get things wrong. I'm calling them Lying Machines because they literally don't have either the hardware or progeny to be able to care about any concept of the truth, whether regarding explicit simple physical facts or about the intentions of a reciprocal conversation. They are, literally, designed, trained, and selected to fool humans so Sam Altman (and many others) can get his bag.
  - codezero 2y ago
    I find LLMs to be useful tools like any other piece of software. Prompting to get creative ideas is just like using any other software and coding it to respond with various options by say, pruning a large set of options based on a heuristic. In this case it’s a black box and the software is a bunch of words strung together. Also, I don’t pay for ChatGPT and often do this on local LLMs because it’s fun to use new technology. You seem to have an axe to grind, good for you, I think we need lots of variety of opinion and passion as a society.
    - Intralexical 2y ago
      I think it's poor form to bring the unvetted outputs of a pseudorandom algorithm to a discussion with real people who are investing their own mental effort and emotional energy. If you couldn't be bothered to have the thought, why would you expect other people to listen to you? That's the opposite of having "lots of variety of opinion and passion as a society". It's outsourcing cognition to a machine designed to emulate the most banal, superficial, and mediocre aspects of human expression.
      - codezero 2y ago