3 ms·
I think you have bought into the narrative they want to sell you. LLMs are devoid of any kind of intelligenceor awareness.
by PowerElectronix 3mo ago
I think you have bought into the narrative they want to sell you.
LLMs are devoid of any kind of intelligenceor awareness.
- dminik 3mo agoSo is a bomb. Doesn't make it safe.
- bartread 3mo agoNo, I absolutely realise that: but it's irrelevant. It doesn't make them safe. And after reading the linked BBC article, along with the article linked from the discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48997548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48997548, I struggle to grasp the failure of imagination that doesn't see or accept that going further and allowing an LLM to control something that acts physically in the real world could be incredibly dangerous. It really doesn't matter whether that behaviour results from "intelligence" or "awareness" or merely a stochastic quirk of a particular run of the model(s) and their orchestration: a dangerous machine is still dangerous. It's odd that you would try to dismiss that concern with a non-argument.
- PowerElectronix 3mo agoI wouldn't put a random number generator to command a bulldozer inputs, which is the risk you mention about giving an AI instance command of something that can interact with the real world. That doesn't mean that an AI left to itself in a computer plugged to internet is inherently a risk.
- bartread 3mo ago> I wouldn't I'm not talking about you though, am I? I'm saying that there are people working in this field who will do exactly that. We are now going in circles.