2 ms·

Lying assumes that the AI knows the truth but is choosing not to tell it to you. It is possible that in situations where it is RLFHed to do so involving inconve

Lying assumes that the AI knows the truth but is choosing not to tell it to you. It is possible that in situations where it is RLFHed to do so involving inconvenient truths this is the case, but otherwise it is just going off the statistics of the training dataset. If I had to anthropomorphize an LLM, I would probably call it sociopathic. It can be useful, and it can empathize very well, and agree with me and so on. But it itself isn't affected by it. It will do exactly the same to my enemy or someone who takes the opposite positions. But overall I feel it is not a good idea to project human pathologies on a bunch of matrix multiplications.

mannykannot 2y ago
Furthermore, lying is (almost?) invariably performed in order to put one or more persons' minds into states which differ from those that the lie-teller supposes they would be in if they had spoken the truth. This view supposes that the lie-teller has a theory of mind with regard to those other people, but does this mean that a 'lying' AI must also have a theory of mind? I don't think so, as I can readily imagine that AIs (and people, for that matter) could learn the utility of saying certain things as opposed to the alternatives, without regard to their effect on the state of mind of other people, and without regard to which of the candidate statements would be truthful. In a sense, it would be like 'cheating' at a game on account of not knowing all the rules.