3 ms·

Absolutely. Behaviour that in normal life in clean societies would be "eliciting violence": automated hypocritical lying, apologizing in form and not in substan

by mdp2021 2y ago

Absolutely. Behaviour that in normal life in clean societies would be "eliciting violence": automated hypocritical lying, apologizing in form and not in substance, making statements based on fictional value instead of truthfulness...

okasaki 2y ago
What?
- mdp2021 2y ago
  What "what"? Did the rest of the comments clarify the points to you or should I formulate a "I am so sorry and heartbroken about having suggested that to play a sound you should use the, as you now inform me, non existing command and parameter `oboe --weird-format mysound.snd`, I'll check my information more thoroughly next time and make sure it will not happen again"...
  - okasaki 2y ago
    I mean I'm just not sure what you're saying. What does "eliciting violence" and "clean society" mean? Are you ok? When a web site says "Sorry, page not found" do you start punching your monitor? When the delivery guy leaves a note saying "Sorry we missed you" do you go to the depot to beat up the employees?
    - mdp2021 2y ago
      > What does "eliciting violence" and "clean society" mean I think you are on a good trail to having understood what they meant. The use of 'sorry' is not generally a problem because it is normally framed within expected behaviour and it can be taken as adequate for a true representation, or not blatantly false. But you could imagine scenarios in which the term would be misused into inappropriate formality or manipulation and yes, disrespect is "eliciting violence". You normally work a way in the situation to avoid violence - that is another story. In "sorry, page not found" 'sorry' is the descriptor for a state (i.e. "not the better case"); in "sorry we missed you" it is just courtesy - and it does not generally cover fault or negligence. But look: there are regions that adopt "your call is important to us", and regions that tend to avoid it - because the suspect of it being inappropriate (false) can be strong. The outputs of LLMs I have used frequently passes the threshold, and possibly their structural engineering - if you had in front of you a worker, in flesh and bones, that in its outputs wrote plausible fiction ("I imagined a command `oboe` because it sounded good in the story") as opposed to answering your question, but under the veneer of answering questions (which implies, outputting relevant world assessments, Truth based), that would be a right "sore" for "sorry". The anthropomorphic features of LLMs compromise the quality of their outputs in terms of form, especially in solution-finding attempts that become loops of "This is the solution" // "Are you sure?" // "Definitely" // "It is not" // "Oh, I'm so sorry! It will not happen again. This is the solution" (loop...). Edit: it seems you may have also asked for clarifications about the contextual expression «clean societies». Those societies cybernetically healthy, in which feedback mechanisms work properly to fine-tune general mechanisms - with particular regard to fixing individual, then collective behaviour.
Intralexical 2y ago
That's all they can do. They seem impressive at first because they're basically trained as an adversarial attack on the ways we express our own intelligence. But they fall apart quickly because they don't have actually have any of the internal state that allows our words to mean anything. They're a mask with nothing behind it. Ctrl+F for "Central nervous system": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_cell_types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_cell_types Choose any five wikilinks. Skim their distinct functions and pathologies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_in_the_human_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_in_the_human_b... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_brain_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_brain_network Evolution's many things, but maybe most of all lazy. Human intelligence has dozens of distinct neuron types and at least hundreds of differentiated regions/neural subnetworks because we need all those parts in order to be both sentient and sapient. If you lesion parts of the human brain, you lose the associated functions, and eventually end up with what we'd call mental/neurological illnesses. Delusions, obsessions, solipsism, amorality, shakes, self-contradiction, aggression, manipulation, etc. LLMs don't have any of those parts at all. They only have pattern-matching. They can only lie, because they don't have the sensory, object permanence, and memory faculties to conceive of an immutable external "truth"/reality. They can only be hypocritical, because they don't have the internal identity and introspective abilities to be able to have consistent values. They cannot apologize in substance, because they have neither the theory of mind and self-awareness to understand what they did wrong, the social motivation to care, nor the neuroplasticity to change and be better. They can only ever be manipulative, because they don't have emotions to express honestly. And I think it speaks to a not-atypical Silicon Valley arrogance to pretend that they can replicate "intelligence", without apparently ever considering a high-school-level philosophy or psychology course to understand what actually lets human intelligence tick. At most they're mechanical psychopaths [1]. They might have some uses, but never outweighing the dangers for anything serious. Some of the individuals who think this technology is anything remotely close to "intelligent" have probably genuinely fallen for it. The rest, I suppose, see nothing wrong because they've created a tool in their own image… [1]: I use this term loosely. "Psychopathy" is not a diagnosis in the DSM-V, but psychopathic traits are associated with multiple disorders that share similar characteristics.
- 2y ago

okasaki 2y ago

What?

mdp2021 2y ago
What "what"? Did the rest of the comments clarify the points to you or should I formulate a "I am so sorry and heartbroken about having suggested that to play a sound you should use the, as you now inform me, non existing command and parameter `oboe --weird-format mysound.snd`, I'll check my information more thoroughly next time and make sure it will not happen again"...
- okasaki 2y ago
  I mean I'm just not sure what you're saying. What does "eliciting violence" and "clean society" mean? Are you ok? When a web site says "Sorry, page not found" do you start punching your monitor? When the delivery guy leaves a note saying "Sorry we missed you" do you go to the depot to beat up the employees?
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > What does "eliciting violence" and "clean society" mean I think you are on a good trail to having understood what they meant. The use of 'sorry' is not generally a problem because it is normally framed within expected behaviour and it can be taken as adequate for a true representation, or not blatantly false. But you could imagine scenarios in which the term would be misused into inappropriate formality or manipulation and yes, disrespect is "eliciting violence". You normally work a way in the situation to avoid violence - that is another story. In "sorry, page not found" 'sorry' is the descriptor for a state (i.e. "not the better case"); in "sorry we missed you" it is just courtesy - and it does not generally cover fault or negligence. But look: there are regions that adopt "your call is important to us", and regions that tend to avoid it - because the suspect of it being inappropriate (false) can be strong. The outputs of LLMs I have used frequently passes the threshold, and possibly their structural engineering - if you had in front of you a worker, in flesh and bones, that in its outputs wrote plausible fiction ("I imagined a command `oboe` because it sounded good in the story") as opposed to answering your question, but under the veneer of answering questions (which implies, outputting relevant world assessments, Truth based), that would be a right "sore" for "sorry". The anthropomorphic features of LLMs compromise the quality of their outputs in terms of form, especially in solution-finding attempts that become loops of "This is the solution" // "Are you sure?" // "Definitely" // "It is not" // "Oh, I'm so sorry! It will not happen again. This is the solution" (loop...). Edit: it seems you may have also asked for clarifications about the contextual expression «clean societies». Those societies cybernetically healthy, in which feedback mechanisms work properly to fine-tune general mechanisms - with particular regard to fixing individual, then collective behaviour.

Intralexical 2y ago

That's all they can do. They seem impressive at first because they're basically trained as an adversarial attack on the ways we express our own intelligence. But they fall apart quickly because they don't have actually have any of the internal state that allows our words to mean anything. They're a mask with nothing behind it. Ctrl+F for "Central nervous system": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_cell_types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_cell_types Choose any five wikilinks. Skim their distinct functions and pathologies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_in_the_human_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_in_the_human_b... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_brain_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_brain_network Evolution's many things, but maybe most of all lazy. Human intelligence has dozens of distinct neuron types and at least hundreds of differentiated regions/neural subnetworks because we need all those parts in order to be both sentient and sapient. If you lesion parts of the human brain, you lose the associated functions, and eventually end up with what we'd call mental/neurological illnesses. Delusions, obsessions, solipsism, amorality, shakes, self-contradiction, aggression, manipulation, etc. LLMs don't have any of those parts at all. They only have pattern-matching. They can only lie, because they don't have the sensory, object permanence, and memory faculties to conceive of an immutable external "truth"/reality. They can only be hypocritical, because they don't have the internal identity and introspective abilities to be able to have consistent values. They cannot apologize in substance, because they have neither the theory of mind and self-awareness to understand what they did wrong, the social motivation to care, nor the neuroplasticity to change and be better. They can only ever be manipulative, because they don't have emotions to express honestly. And I think it speaks to a not-atypical Silicon Valley arrogance to pretend that they can replicate "intelligence", without apparently ever considering a high-school-level philosophy or psychology course to understand what actually lets human intelligence tick. At most they're mechanical psychopaths [1]. They might have some uses, but never outweighing the dangers for anything serious. Some of the individuals who think this technology is anything remotely close to "intelligent" have probably genuinely fallen for it. The rest, I suppose, see nothing wrong because they've created a tool in their own image… [1]: I use this term loosely. "Psychopathy" is not a diagnosis in the DSM-V, but psychopathic traits are associated with multiple disorders that share similar characteristics.

2y ago