3 ms·

I guess our disagreement here is that I don't think AIs are moral entities/are capable of being harmed or that training AIs and teaching humans are comparable.

I guess our disagreement here is that I don't think AIs are moral entities/are capable of being harmed or that training AIs and teaching humans are comparable. Being abusive to pupils isn't wrong because of something fundamental across natural and machine learning, it's wrong because it's harmful to the pupils. In what way is it possible to harm an LLM?

spacebanana7 2y ago
Writing a book with content you know to be false for political reasons is morally wrong. Even if nobody reads it. It'd be bad if I manipulated climate change statistics in my metrology textbook to satisfy the political preferences of the oil industry donors to my university, for example. Viewing the current generation of LLMs as 'intelligent books' is perhaps more accurate than viewing them as pupils. It's easy to extend my example of a professor writing a metrology textbook to a professor fine tuning an metrology LLM.
lmm 2y ago
> I don't think AIs are moral entities/are capable of being harmed or that training AIs and teaching humans are comparable. Notice how this is a completely different argument that has nothing in common with what you originally said - "I don't understand the take that training an AI is an amoral act but aligning an AI is inherently moral. They're exactly the same, processes for adjusting parameters to get a desired outcome. However you feel about that desired outcome, if you don't think training an AI is torture, I don't see why you should think alignment is."
- maxbond 2y ago
  That's pretty uncharitable. You pivoted the conversation by introducing a new hypothetical for me to respond to. Of course my response is different. There's no conflict between the two comments. If we're going to be play that game, notice how you didn't actually respond to my comment or explain why you thought LLMs were moral entitles or why ML and teaching were comparable? I actually engaged substantively with your hypothetical; are you able to do the same?
  - lmm 2y ago
    > You pivoted the conversation by introducing a new hypothetical for me to respond to. I wasn't trying to introduce anything new, I was trying to point out a gap in the logic of your original statement. > notice how you didn't actually respond to my comment or explain why you thought LLMs were moral entitles or why ML and teaching were comparable? Yes, of course, I wrote that to explain why I'm not engaging on this new, different claim.
    - maxbond 2y ago
      The nerve of me, to expand on my views as a discussion develops. Of course you have lots of great points to make, but you can't share them with the likes of me.
      - lmm 2y ago
        > The nerve of me, to expand on my views as a discussion develops. Nothing wrong with expanding your views. But you've neither defended nor retracted your original argument. I'm trying to stick to that. > Of course you have lots of great points to make, but you can't share them with the likes of me. I don't have anything to say about your new argument (which may be great and compelling), I haven't thought through it at all, I'm trying to avoid getting sidetracked.
        maxbond 2y ago
        Let's just be perfectly clear here. You asked: why should we treat these two cases differently? I answered: one of them involves harm and one can't possibly. You then refused to discuss the topic further. I never changed my mind. I never contradicted myself. I have nothing to retract. I simply elaborated on my views in response to your question. Regardless of whether you "didn't intend to introduce something new" - you did, you introduced a new hypothetical and a new challenge. I don't know why you are reacting this way, but let's be perfectly clear, I engaged substantively with your points, and you simply refused to continue the discussion. That's all well and good, you're under no obligation. But you're saying I've done something wrong here, and I really haven't. Frankly I find the whole thing bizarre.

spacebanana7 2y ago

Writing a book with content you know to be false for political reasons is morally wrong. Even if nobody reads it. It'd be bad if I manipulated climate change statistics in my metrology textbook to satisfy the political preferences of the oil industry donors to my university, for example. Viewing the current generation of LLMs as 'intelligent books' is perhaps more accurate than viewing them as pupils. It's easy to extend my example of a professor writing a metrology textbook to a professor fine tuning an metrology LLM.

lmm 2y ago

> I don't think AIs are moral entities/are capable of being harmed or that training AIs and teaching humans are comparable. Notice how this is a completely different argument that has nothing in common with what you originally said - "I don't understand the take that training an AI is an amoral act but aligning an AI is inherently moral. They're exactly the same, processes for adjusting parameters to get a desired outcome. However you feel about that desired outcome, if you don't think training an AI is torture, I don't see why you should think alignment is."

maxbond 2y ago
That's pretty uncharitable. You pivoted the conversation by introducing a new hypothetical for me to respond to. Of course my response is different. There's no conflict between the two comments. If we're going to be play that game, notice how you didn't actually respond to my comment or explain why you thought LLMs were moral entitles or why ML and teaching were comparable? I actually engaged substantively with your hypothetical; are you able to do the same?
- lmm 2y ago
  > You pivoted the conversation by introducing a new hypothetical for me to respond to. I wasn't trying to introduce anything new, I was trying to point out a gap in the logic of your original statement. > notice how you didn't actually respond to my comment or explain why you thought LLMs were moral entitles or why ML and teaching were comparable? Yes, of course, I wrote that to explain why I'm not engaging on this new, different claim.
  - maxbond 2y ago
    The nerve of me, to expand on my views as a discussion develops. Of course you have lots of great points to make, but you can't share them with the likes of me.
    - lmm 2y ago
      > The nerve of me, to expand on my views as a discussion develops. Nothing wrong with expanding your views. But you've neither defended nor retracted your original argument. I'm trying to stick to that. > Of course you have lots of great points to make, but you can't share them with the likes of me. I don't have anything to say about your new argument (which may be great and compelling), I haven't thought through it at all, I'm trying to avoid getting sidetracked.
      - maxbond 2y ago
        Let's just be perfectly clear here. You asked: why should we treat these two cases differently? I answered: one of them involves harm and one can't possibly. You then refused to discuss the topic further. I never changed my mind. I never contradicted myself. I have nothing to retract. I simply elaborated on my views in response to your question. Regardless of whether you "didn't intend to introduce something new" - you did, you introduced a new hypothetical and a new challenge. I don't know why you are reacting this way, but let's be perfectly clear, I engaged substantively with your points, and you simply refused to continue the discussion. That's all well and good, you're under no obligation. But you're saying I've done something wrong here, and I really haven't. Frankly I find the whole thing bizarre.