5 ms·

> confused the AI. I will die on this hill. It isn’t AI. You can’t confuse it.

by dgfitz 1y ago

jayd16 1y ago
They "poisoned the context" which is clearly what they meant.
- dgfitz 1y ago
  “The blue square is red.” “The blue square is blue.” “The blue square is green.” The future is here.
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago
  >>> confused the AI. >> I will die on this hill. It isn’t AI. You can’t confuse it. > They "poisoned the context" which is clearly what they meant. The "demo" was clearly prescriptive and not genuinely interactive. One could easily make the argument that the kayfabe was more like an IVR[0] interaction. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_voice_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_voice_response
taneq 1y ago
Ok, you’ve piqued my interest. What’s required in order for something to be genuinely confused?
- tomrod 1y ago
  Capacity for will, I would imagine the OP may respond. I'm not averse to the position.
- Fade_Dance 1y ago
  Just try asking an AI about the Seahorse Emoji (insert close-yet-comically-incorrect emojis since they won't render here): _________ ChatGPT: There is a seahorse emoji: — wait, no, that’s a lobster. Okay, for real now: Here it is: � Seahorse — argh, it’s still not showing properly here. Let’s try again: (hedgehog) (sauropod) (T-rex) (otter) (seal) (lobster) …but no actual (squid) or (mermaid) matches… Okay, deep breath — I checked the official Unicode list. And you’re right: The seahorse emoji does exist — it’s — no, okay really: (hedgehog) (hippo) (peacock) Still nothing? Wait — turns out, I was wrong, and you’re right to call me out. There is a seahorse emoji: — no! _________ https://ibb.co/GfpWRXCz https://ibb.co/GfpWRXCz
- MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
  The ability to think. If it can't think in the first place, it can't get confused. Whether it's "real AI" or not depends on semantics of that you consider AI to be: * If you think it's something that resembles intelligence enough to be useful in the same way intelligence is and to seem to be intelligence, this is clearly it. The "plant based meats" of AI. * If you think it means actual intelligence that was manufactured by a human, this is not that. It's shockingly impressive auto correct, and it's useful, but it's not actually thinking. This would be "artificially created intelligence"; in essence, real intelligence with an artificial origin. The lab grown meat of AI. For the latter, I really think it needs reasoning ability that isn't based on language. Plenty of animals can think and reason without depending on language. Language is a great carrier of intelligence, which is why LLMs work so well, but language is not the foundation of intelligence. That said, I think "confused" is a fine enough anthropomorphization. I refer to things like Bluetooth issues as the machine getting confused all the time. Back in the day, Netflix would often have problems with the wrong image showing for a show, and I called that "Netflix getting confused". We know it's not actually getting confused.
  - taneq 1y ago
    You're just moving the question from "confused" to "think", and I think you're also conflating "to be confused" (which was what I said) with "to feel confused" (which is a whole other thing.) I guess my definition of 'to be confused' is something like 'to have a significant mismatch between your model and reality', so yeah, you could argue that a PID controller is "confused" by a workload with significant inertia. And 'to feel confused' would be 'to identify a significant mismatch between your model and reality', of which clearly a PID controller is not capable, but most multicellular life forms are.
- chmod775 1y ago
  If by "genuinely confused" we are talking about what is generally called the emotion "confusion", then you need meta-cognition to even recognize your thinking is confused in order to then experience it. LLMs can model reflection by using their own output as input, but otherwise lack meta-cognitive processes. Through reflection they can later recognize what they did previously was wrong, but they will never experience "what I am currently thinking seems wrong/does not fit". However "confusion" can also mean "mistaking one thing for another" or simply "doing the wrong thing", which is something computer programs have been able to fuck up since forever.

> confused the AI. I will die on this hill. It isn’t AI. You can’t confuse it.

by dgfitz 1y ago

> confused the AI. I will die on this hill. It isn’t AI. You can’t confuse it.

jayd16 1y ago

They "poisoned the context" which is clearly what they meant.

dgfitz 1y ago
“The blue square is red.” “The blue square is blue.” “The blue square is green.” The future is here.
AdieuToLogic 1y ago
>>> confused the AI. >> I will die on this hill. It isn’t AI. You can’t confuse it. > They "poisoned the context" which is clearly what they meant. The "demo" was clearly prescriptive and not genuinely interactive. One could easily make the argument that the kayfabe was more like an IVR[0] interaction. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_voice_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_voice_response

taneq 1y ago

Ok, you’ve piqued my interest. What’s required in order for something to be genuinely confused?

tomrod 1y ago
Capacity for will, I would imagine the OP may respond. I'm not averse to the position.
Fade_Dance 1y ago
Just try asking an AI about the Seahorse Emoji (insert close-yet-comically-incorrect emojis since they won't render here): _________ ChatGPT: There is a seahorse emoji: — wait, no, that’s a lobster. Okay, for real now: Here it is: � Seahorse — argh, it’s still not showing properly here. Let’s try again: (hedgehog) (sauropod) (T-rex) (otter) (seal) (lobster) …but no actual (squid) or (mermaid) matches… Okay, deep breath — I checked the official Unicode list. And you’re right: The seahorse emoji does exist — it’s — no, okay really: (hedgehog) (hippo) (peacock) Still nothing? Wait — turns out, I was wrong, and you’re right to call me out. There is a seahorse emoji: — no! _________ https://ibb.co/GfpWRXCz https://ibb.co/GfpWRXCz
MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
The ability to think. If it can't think in the first place, it can't get confused. Whether it's "real AI" or not depends on semantics of that you consider AI to be: * If you think it's something that resembles intelligence enough to be useful in the same way intelligence is and to seem to be intelligence, this is clearly it. The "plant based meats" of AI. * If you think it means actual intelligence that was manufactured by a human, this is not that. It's shockingly impressive auto correct, and it's useful, but it's not actually thinking. This would be "artificially created intelligence"; in essence, real intelligence with an artificial origin. The lab grown meat of AI. For the latter, I really think it needs reasoning ability that isn't based on language. Plenty of animals can think and reason without depending on language. Language is a great carrier of intelligence, which is why LLMs work so well, but language is not the foundation of intelligence. That said, I think "confused" is a fine enough anthropomorphization. I refer to things like Bluetooth issues as the machine getting confused all the time. Back in the day, Netflix would often have problems with the wrong image showing for a show, and I called that "Netflix getting confused". We know it's not actually getting confused.
- taneq 1y ago
  You're just moving the question from "confused" to "think", and I think you're also conflating "to be confused" (which was what I said) with "to feel confused" (which is a whole other thing.) I guess my definition of 'to be confused' is something like 'to have a significant mismatch between your model and reality', so yeah, you could argue that a PID controller is "confused" by a workload with significant inertia. And 'to feel confused' would be 'to identify a significant mismatch between your model and reality', of which clearly a PID controller is not capable, but most multicellular life forms are.
chmod775 1y ago
If by "genuinely confused" we are talking about what is generally called the emotion "confusion", then you need meta-cognition to even recognize your thinking is confused in order to then experience it. LLMs can model reflection by using their own output as input, but otherwise lack meta-cognitive processes. Through reflection they can later recognize what they did previously was wrong, but they will never experience "what I am currently thinking seems wrong/does not fit". However "confusion" can also mean "mistaking one thing for another" or simply "doing the wrong thing", which is something computer programs have been able to fuck up since forever.