5 ms·
AI-induced dehumanization (2024)
- inquirerGeneral 1y ago[dead]
- cratermoon 1y agoI'm unwilling to accept the discussion and conclusions of the paper because of the framing of how LLMs work. > socio-emotional capabilities of autonomous agents The paper fails to note that these 'capabilities' are illusory. They are a product of how the behaviors of LLMs "hack" our brains and exploit the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution of our equipment as a social species. https://jenson.org/timmy/ https://jenson.org/timmy/
- Isamu 1y agoNo, I think the thesis is that people perceive falsely that agents are highly human, and as a result assimilate downward toward the agent’s bias and conclusions. That is the dehumanization process they are describing.
- kohsuke 1y agoBut that's beside the point of the paper. They are talking about how the humans perciving the "socio-emotional capabilities of autonomous agents" change their behavior toward other humans. Whether people get that perception because "LLMs hack our brain" or something else is largely irrelevant.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- stuartjohnson12 1y agoYour socio-emotional capabilities are illusory. They are a product of how craving for social acceptance "hacks" your brain and exploits the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution of our equipment as a social species.
- skeezyboy 1y agoits a next word predictor. if youve been convinced it has a brain, i have some magic beans youd be interested in
- ACCount37 1y agoYou're saying "next word predictor" as if it's some kind of gotcha. You're typing on a keyboard, which means you're nothing but a "next keypress predictor". This says very little about how intelligent are you.
- skeezyboy 1y agonot my only trick is it though. human brain engages in all sorts of cognitive enterprises, language formation being just one of them. LLMS are essentially statistical predictors - which is indeed part of what a human brain does but only a small slither of its abilities.
- stuartjohnson12 1y agoand if it is a sufficiently accurate next word predictor then it may accurately predict what an agent with socio-emotional skills would use as their next word in which case it will have exhibited socio-emotional skill.
- empath75 1y ago
- kingkawn 1y agoThe paper literally spells out that this is a perception of the user and that is the root of the impact
- cratermoon 1y agoPerhaps I missed it, could you help me see where specifically the paper acknowledges or asserts that LLMs do not have these capabilities? I see where the paper repeatedly mentions perceptions, but I also see right at the beginning, "Our research reveals that the socio-emotional capabilities of autonomous agents lead individuals to attribute a humanlike mind to these nonhuman entities" [emphasis added], and multiple places in the paper, for example in the section titled "Theoretical Background", subtitle 'Socio-emotional capabilities in autonomous agents increase “humanness”', LLMs are implied to have at least low levels of these capabilities, and contrasts it to the perception that they have high levels. In brief, the paper consistently but implicitly regards these tools as having at least minimal socio-emotional capabilities, and that the problem is humans perceiving them as having higher levels.
- kingkawn 1y ago“…leads individuals to attribute a human-like mind to these nonhuman entities.” It is the ability of the agent to emulate these social capacities that leads users to attribute human-like minds. There is no assertion whatsoever that the agents have a mind, but that their behavior leads some people to that conclusion. It’s in your own example.
- cootsnuck 1y agoI can’t tell if you’re being disingenuous, but the very first sentence of the abstract literally says the word "simulate": > Recent technological advancements have empowered nonhuman entities, such as virtual assistants and humanoid robots, to simulate human intelligence and behavior. In the paper, "socio-emotional capability" is serving as a behavioral/operational label. Specifically, the ability to understand, express, and respond to emotions. It's used to study perceptions and spillovers. That's it. The authors manipulate perceived socio-emotional behavior and measure how that shifts human judgments and treatment of others. Whether that behavior is "illusory" or phenomenally real is orthogonal to the research scope and doesn’t change the results. But regardless, as I said, they quite literally said "simulate", so you should still be satisfied.
- chrisweekly 1y ago+1 Insightful Your "timmy" post deserves its own discussion. Thanks for sharing it!
- temporallobe 1y agoAs a Black Sabbath fan, I love that they envisioned dystopian stuff like this. Check out their Dehumanizer album.
- megamix 1y agoHow do you guys read through an article this fast after it's submitted? I need more than 1 hr to think this through.
- jncfhnb 1y agoAsk AI to summarize and write a response
- skeezyboy 1y agocos its mostly fluff you can skip over
- bee_rider 1y agoSo far (as of 15 or so minutes after your comment) we have only one top-level comment that really indicates that the poster has started trying to read the paper seriously, Kohsuke’s post. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44912783 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44912783 They actually described the methodology at least (note: I also haven’t fully read the paper yet, but I wanted to post in support of you not having a “take” yet, haha).
- broast 1y agoI'm a bot
- cryoshon 1y agoTo the point of the paper, it has been a somewhat disturbing experience to see otherwise affable superiors in the workplace "prompt" their employees in ways that are obviously downstream of their (very frequent) LLM usage.
- reb 1y agoI started noticing this behavior a few months ago and whew. Easy to fix if the individual cares to, but very hard to ignore from the outside. Unsolicited advice for all: make an effort to hold onto your manners even with the robots or you'll quickly end up struggling to collaborate with anyone else.
- topaz0 1y agoI'd take this advice one step further: just don't use the robots
- chuckadams 1y agoI still say "please" to the AI assistant so that I'll be among the last to be made into paperclips.
- AlienRobot 1y agoWhat does that sound like?
- righthand 1y agoAsk chatgpt ways to instruct an employee on a task.
- lordnacho 1y agoOne very new behavior is the dismissal of someone's writing as the work of AI. It's sadly become quite common on internet forums to suppose that some post or comment was written by AI. It's probably true in some cases, but people should ask themselves how the cost/benefit to calling it out looks.
- SkyeCA 1y agoUnfortunately it's the correct thing to do. Just like in the past where you shouldn't have believed any stories told on the internet, it's now reasonable to assume any image/text you come across wasn't created by a human, or in the case of images is simply an event that never happened. The easiest way to protect myself these days is to assume the worst about all content. Why am I replying to a comment in that case? Consider it a case yelling into the void.
- AftHurrahWinch 1y ago1. A bot-generated argument is still an argument. I can't make claims about the truth or falsity based on the enunciator, that's simply ad hominem. 2. A bot-generated image is not a record of photon-emissions in the physical world. When I look at photos, they need to be records of the physical world, or they're a creative work. I think you can't rationally apply the same standard to these 2 things.
- foobiekr 1y agoThe problem is the bullshit asymmetry and engaging in good faith. AI users aren’t investing actual work and can generate reams if bullshit that puts three burden on others to untangle. And they also aren’t engaging in good faith.
- AftHurrahWinch 1y agoSome discussions are dialectic, where a group is cooperatively reasoning toward a shared truth. In dialectical discussions, good faith is crucial. AI can't participate in dialectical work. Most public discourse is not dialectical, it is rhetorical. The goal is to persuade the audience, not your interlocutor. You aren't "yelling into the void", you're advocating to the jury. Rhetoric is the model used in debate. Proponents don't expect to change their Opponent's mind, and vice versa. In fact, if your opponent is obstinate (or a non-sentient text generator), it is easier to demonstrate the strength of your position to the gallery. People reference Brandolini's "bullshit asymmetry principle" but don't differentiate between dialectical and rhetorical contexts. In a rhetorical context, the strategy is to demonstrate to the audience that your interlocutor is generating text with an indifference to truth. You can then pivot, forcing them to defend their method rather than making you debunk their claims.
- cm2012 1y agoInteresting theory with insufficient evidence
- kohsuke 1y agoSo they run 5 different experiments to test the hypothesis, and they were nothing like what I imagined. For example, in one study, they divide participants into two groups, have one group watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn3KWM1kuAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn3KWM1kuAw (that highlights the high socio-emotional capabilities of a robot), while the other watches https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4DML7FIWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4DML7FIWk (that highlights the low socio-emotional capabilities of a robot) They are then asked if they agree or disagree with a (presumably hypothetical?) company's proposal to reduce employees' welfare, such as replacing a meal with a shake. Two groups showed a different preference. This makes me think about that old question of whether you thank LLM or not. That is treating LLMs more like humans, so if what this paper found holds, maybe that'd nudge our brain subtly toward dehumanizing other real humans!? That's so counter intuitive...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- sillysaurusx 1y agoDo you understand how they chose the two groups? And why show one group one video, and the other group the other video? Shouldn’t both groups be shown the same video, then check whether the group division method had any impact on the results? E.g. if group one was dance lovers and group two were dance haters, you wouldn’t get any data on the haters since they were shown the parkour video instead of the dance video. Also, interesting bit: "Participants in the high (vs. low) socio-emotional capability condition showed more negative treatment intentions toward employees"
- daveguy 1y agoApparently you do not understand how they chose the two groups. Group identity was not based on a survey or any attribute of the participating individuals. Low and high socio-emotional groups refer to whether the group was shown the low or high socio-emotional video. The pre-test and exclusion based on lack of attention and instruction following was performed before group selection for each individual, which was presumably random.
- skeezyboy 1y agoEssentially he did a bunch of surveys. Apparently this is science
- AlexandrB 1y agoI can't tell if I'm just getting old, but the last 2 major tech cycles (cryptocurrency and AI) have both seemed like net negatives for society. I wonder if this is how my parents felt about the internet back in the 90s. Interestingly, both technologies also supercharge scams - one by providing a way to cash out with minimal risk, the other by making convincing human interaction easier to fake.
- throwaway22032 1y agoThey are both force multipliers. The issue of course is that technology almost always disproportionately benefits the more intelligent / ruthless.
- computerthings 1y ago[dead]
- podgietaru 1y agoI think the biggest problem with both technologies is how many people seem to think this. Crypto was a way that people who think they’re brilliant can engage in gambling. AI is a way for “smart” people to create language to make their opinions sound “smarter”
- tudorizer 1y agoThis parallel is something that I've been mulling over for the better part of this year. Are we simply getting old and bitter? Personally, I would add a previous cycle to this: social media. Although people were quick to point at the companies which were sparked and empowered by having unprecedented distribution. Are we really better or worse off than a few decades ago?
- tines 1y ago> Are we simply getting old and bitter? No, we are getting wiser. It's not bitterness to look at a technology with a critical eye and see the bad effects as well as the good. It's not foolish to judge that the negative effects outweigh the positive. It's a mark of maturity. "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."
- fontsgenerator 1y agoInteresting point — AI can automate tasks, but we need to ensure it doesn’t strip away human judgment and empathy
- netsharc 1y agoOn the opposite side (i.e. the side of what Bender called meatbags), there are a lot of jobs where judgment and empathy are not allowed. E.g. TSA agents examinining babies for bombs in case they're terrorists -- they were told "You must do this to every passenger, no questions asked" and making a decision means deviating from their job description and risking losing it.