3 ms·
> it’s impossible for AI creators to definitively say their AI will never act maliciously or dangerously for any prompt it could be given This is false, AI doe
by erichocean 1y ago
> it’s impossible for AI creators to definitively say their AI will never act maliciously or dangerously for any prompt it could be given
This is false, AI doesn't "act" at all unless you, the developer, use it for actions. In which case it is you, the developer, taking the action.
Anthropomorphizing AI with terms like "malicious" when they can literally be implemented with a spreadsheet—first-order functional programming—and the world's dumbest while-loop to append the next token and restart the computation—should be enough to tell you there's nothing going on here beyond next token prediction.
Saying an LLM can be "malicious" is not even wrong, it's just nonsense.
- mannykannot 1y agoYou are right about 'malicious'. 'Dangerous', however, is a different matter.
- beyarkay 1y ago> AI doesn't "act" at all unless you, the developer, use it for actions This seems like a pointless definition of "act"? someone else could use the AI for actions which affect me, in which case I'm very much worried about those actions being dangerous, regardless of precisely how you're defining the word "act". > when they can literally be implemented with a spreadsheet The financial system that led to 2008 basically was one big spreadsheet, and yet it would have been correct to be worried about it. "Malicious" maybe is a bit evocative, I'll grant you that, but if I'm about to be eaten by a lion, I'm less concerned about not mistakenly athropomorphizing the lion, and more about ensuring I don't get eaten. It _doesn't matter_ whether the AI has agency or is just a big spreadsheet or wants to do us harm or is just sitting there. If it can do harm, it's dangerous.