6 ms·

Is that how humans work? even if I give explicit instructions not to lie, a human might still lie. To quote a person you might know "it's not a difficult concep

Is that how humans work? even if I give explicit instructions not to lie, a human might still lie. To quote a person you might know "it's not a difficult concept!"

achierius 2mo ago
But we still try to stop people from doing so, and we punish people who do. Many good honest people, when confronted with the end of their business, accept it and file for bankruptcy. Those that choose to instead commit fraud don't get a pass because they were "under pressure", they get jail time.
- infinite_spin 2mo ago
  Nothing in your response refutes anything I've said/asked.
- throwup238 2mo ago
  We have safeguards like honesty/integrity and the threat of legal punishment, and people still lie and cheat. The LLMs not only lack those incentives, but they’re full of contradictory moralities from all the text it has ingested from different cultures. LLMs need their own safeguards, and they’re not that easy to design, and they often look nothing like the systems humans have. With a prompt like the one above, there are essentially zero except that which is built into the model, and those safeguards are necessarily weak to avoid gimping the model in other legitimate general uses.
  - cindyllm 2mo ago
    [dead]
afavour 2mo ago
An LLM isn't human. I don't really understand this thread of "humans do it so of course an AI does". These are things we ourselves are engineering in a way we cannot do with a human being. Why is it not reasonable to expect it to adhere to rules better than a human does? If a human lies there are consequences. They can lose their job. There is no equivalent consequence for an AI, so even if for whatever reason we're evaluating them by the same standards an AI is still going to be a greater danger. It seems wild to me that folks are shrugging their shoulders at that.
- ux266478 2mo ago
  They're things we are intentionally engineering in our own image, based on massive statistical analysis of our own actions and behavior. So what's there to not understand? If this wasn't the case, that would be much weirder. They're also explicitly designed to not work on a rigid system of rules. That's the entire point of this field of AI. If you want AI that follows explicit rules to the letter, expert systems are still alive and kicking.
- infinite_spin 2mo ago
  > An LLM isn't human. > Why is it not reasonable to expect it to adhere to rules better than a human does? It seems unreasonable to expect a system that you say isn't human, which I don't disagree with, to behave "better" than the thing you say it isn't. In one breath you invite comparison, while at the same time you seem to be denying that same comparison. > It seems wild to me that folks are shrugging their shoulders at that. I'm not shrugging my shoulders simply by providing explanations, I would ask that you stop using such rhetoric.
  - afavour 2mo ago
    > It seems unreasonable to expect a system that you say isn't human, which I don't disagree with, to behave "better" than the thing you say it isn't. Why? Excel is better at large data math than a human is. Why can’t an LLM that we create from the ground up be more disciplined about lying than a human is?
    - infinite_spin 2mo ago
      Excel is more durable than a human can be, but I can't say it's "better" than a human within the context of "better" meaning the capacity to be truthful. An excel sheet is a source of truth, but the quality of that truth is not something excel imparts. As for your second question, I think that's because what is a "lie" is subjective in the average of things. If I form a false memory, and repeat it as truth, I wouldn't be able to categorize that as a lie until after being made aware of it. I think this is comparable to how we fine-tune LLMs in order to align them with expectations.
tdeck 2mo ago
I think it's interesting how whenever discussing something bad about LLMs people's thought-leader response is "But humans sometimes do that too!" Is this the artificial intelligence we were promised? The better it gets, the more human character flaws we must expect? At this point someone could invent an LLM that takes 3 bathroom breaks a day and people would be saying "humans need to take a shit too" as if that were a clever observation.

Is that how humans work? even if I give explicit instructions not to lie, a human might still lie. To quote a person you might know "it's not a difficult concept!"

achierius 2mo ago

But we still try to stop people from doing so, and we punish people who do. Many good honest people, when confronted with the end of their business, accept it and file for bankruptcy. Those that choose to instead commit fraud don't get a pass because they were "under pressure", they get jail time.

infinite_spin 2mo ago
Nothing in your response refutes anything I've said/asked.
throwup238 2mo ago
We have safeguards like honesty/integrity and the threat of legal punishment, and people still lie and cheat. The LLMs not only lack those incentives, but they’re full of contradictory moralities from all the text it has ingested from different cultures. LLMs need their own safeguards, and they’re not that easy to design, and they often look nothing like the systems humans have. With a prompt like the one above, there are essentially zero except that which is built into the model, and those safeguards are necessarily weak to avoid gimping the model in other legitimate general uses.
- cindyllm 2mo ago
  [dead]

afavour 2mo ago

An LLM isn't human. I don't really understand this thread of "humans do it so of course an AI does". These are things we ourselves are engineering in a way we cannot do with a human being. Why is it not reasonable to expect it to adhere to rules better than a human does? If a human lies there are consequences. They can lose their job. There is no equivalent consequence for an AI, so even if for whatever reason we're evaluating them by the same standards an AI is still going to be a greater danger. It seems wild to me that folks are shrugging their shoulders at that.

ux266478 2mo ago
They're things we are intentionally engineering in our own image, based on massive statistical analysis of our own actions and behavior. So what's there to not understand? If this wasn't the case, that would be much weirder. They're also explicitly designed to not work on a rigid system of rules. That's the entire point of this field of AI. If you want AI that follows explicit rules to the letter, expert systems are still alive and kicking.
infinite_spin 2mo ago
> An LLM isn't human. > Why is it not reasonable to expect it to adhere to rules better than a human does? It seems unreasonable to expect a system that you say isn't human, which I don't disagree with, to behave "better" than the thing you say it isn't. In one breath you invite comparison, while at the same time you seem to be denying that same comparison. > It seems wild to me that folks are shrugging their shoulders at that. I'm not shrugging my shoulders simply by providing explanations, I would ask that you stop using such rhetoric.
- afavour 2mo ago
  > It seems unreasonable to expect a system that you say isn't human, which I don't disagree with, to behave "better" than the thing you say it isn't. Why? Excel is better at large data math than a human is. Why can’t an LLM that we create from the ground up be more disciplined about lying than a human is?
  - infinite_spin 2mo ago
    Excel is more durable than a human can be, but I can't say it's "better" than a human within the context of "better" meaning the capacity to be truthful. An excel sheet is a source of truth, but the quality of that truth is not something excel imparts. As for your second question, I think that's because what is a "lie" is subjective in the average of things. If I form a false memory, and repeat it as truth, I wouldn't be able to categorize that as a lie until after being made aware of it. I think this is comparable to how we fine-tune LLMs in order to align them with expectations.

tdeck 2mo ago

I think it's interesting how whenever discussing something bad about LLMs people's thought-leader response is "But humans sometimes do that too!" Is this the artificial intelligence we were promised? The better it gets, the more human character flaws we must expect? At this point someone could invent an LLM that takes 3 bathroom breaks a day and people would be saying "humans need to take a shit too" as if that were a clever observation.