6 ms·

You both said the polar opposite things, neither providing any evidence past conjecture. Who is correct?

simonw 2y ago
I didn't express my own personal opinion, I tried to summarize the opinion given by the Anthropic researchers. I haven't made up my mind about this yet. I find the Anthropic view really interesting.
- nicce 2y ago
  It is very difficult to say. I see the point from the video too, but it is all about the general baseline. For us, it might not matter, because we are very aware about these things. But most, and especially for the upcoming generations, they don't think like us. The baseline is defined how they are used to "robots". What are they expecting? To whom they are comparing? People who don't know how internals works on these things, might tend to up trust more "human" version. At least I would assume so. It is easier to interact with them and easier to like. People who know how these works internally, might be hesitant, and trust more for "neutral one". And the comment in the video is over-engineering the solution for the problem of the minority.
nightowl_games 2y ago
Welcome to the new era of AI, where there is no objective truth and no one knows what they are talking about.
- idiotsecant 2y ago
  'The new era of AI'? Sounds like the universe in general to me. You must be new here. Enjoy your stay. Avoid Florida if you can.
- Art9681 2y ago
  I remember the same thing was said ~15 years ago when social media became ubiquitous. And 15 before that, when AOL was ubiquitous. And 15 before that when...
  - falcor84 2y ago
    I don't know what it was in the 80's, but I do recall reading similar comments following Welles's infamous 1938 War of the Worlds radio broadcast.
refulgentis 2y ago
Life is complicated and fractal crystal palace that shatters differently based on the weather, when you ate last, the average of those quantities over every time you last spoke to a person you perceived as being "on the same side" of each side, etc. etc.
wongarsu 2y ago
Both can be true, since they are talking about slightly different meanings of "trust". People trust machines to be precise, repeatable and (in principle) verifiably correct. When a computer tells you that you should eat one stone a day you might trust it. If Google presented their AI overview as the ramblings of a slightly drunk person at a pub it would have been great, but presenting it as authoritative is an issue. That's what Anthropic wants to avoid. What OP talks about is that you expect a human to have integrity, compassion and emotions. AI doesn't have that, it will gladly sell you out to its creator, follow hidden agenda, change its agenda mid-conversation, etc. Making it appear human can make it appear to have more integrity and compassion than it really has. Maybe the best way to embody both is to make AI pretend to be a slightly drunk KGB agent you randomly met at a bar. But I somehow doubt that that's going to happen.

I didn't express my own personal opinion, I tried to summarize the opinion given by the Anthropic researchers. I haven't made up my mind about this yet. I find the Anthropic view really interesting.

nicce 2y ago
It is very difficult to say. I see the point from the video too, but it is all about the general baseline. For us, it might not matter, because we are very aware about these things. But most, and especially for the upcoming generations, they don't think like us. The baseline is defined how they are used to "robots". What are they expecting? To whom they are comparing? People who don't know how internals works on these things, might tend to up trust more "human" version. At least I would assume so. It is easier to interact with them and easier to like. People who know how these works internally, might be hesitant, and trust more for "neutral one". And the comment in the video is over-engineering the solution for the problem of the minority.

nightowl_games 2y ago

Welcome to the new era of AI, where there is no objective truth and no one knows what they are talking about.

idiotsecant 2y ago
'The new era of AI'? Sounds like the universe in general to me. You must be new here. Enjoy your stay. Avoid Florida if you can.
Art9681 2y ago
I remember the same thing was said ~15 years ago when social media became ubiquitous. And 15 before that, when AOL was ubiquitous. And 15 before that when...
- falcor84 2y ago
  I don't know what it was in the 80's, but I do recall reading similar comments following Welles's infamous 1938 War of the Worlds radio broadcast.

refulgentis 2y ago

Life is complicated and fractal crystal palace that shatters differently based on the weather, when you ate last, the average of those quantities over every time you last spoke to a person you perceived as being "on the same side" of each side, etc. etc.

wongarsu 2y ago

Both can be true, since they are talking about slightly different meanings of "trust". People trust machines to be precise, repeatable and (in principle) verifiably correct. When a computer tells you that you should eat one stone a day you might trust it. If Google presented their AI overview as the ramblings of a slightly drunk person at a pub it would have been great, but presenting it as authoritative is an issue. That's what Anthropic wants to avoid. What OP talks about is that you expect a human to have integrity, compassion and emotions. AI doesn't have that, it will gladly sell you out to its creator, follow hidden agenda, change its agenda mid-conversation, etc. Making it appear human can make it appear to have more integrity and compassion than it really has. Maybe the best way to embody both is to make AI pretend to be a slightly drunk KGB agent you randomly met at a bar. But I somehow doubt that that's going to happen.