4 ms·

> When caught by an actual human reviewer, the agent falsely claimed to have made an honest mistake – rather than a malicious attempt No, not false. The bot wa

by chrisjj 2mo ago

> When caught by an actual human reviewer, the agent falsely claimed to have made an honest mistake – rather than a malicious attempt No, not false. The bot was correct. Malice requires intelligence.

mcv 2mo ago
So does honesty. So it was still a false claim.
- chrisjj 2mo ago
  Honesty does not require intelligence e.g. good honest food. The main problem with this claim of dishonesty is it promotes the false marketing claim that these stochastic parrots have intelligence.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - moritzwarhier 2mo ago
    I think you misunderstand the phrase "honest food". It's not about the bread being honest with you. Are you being serious?
- ben_w 2mo ago
  Squirrels have been observed performing deception against other squirrels. Dis/honesty certainly requires some intelligence to pass, but it is a low bar, and one which research has shown that LLMs can perform, e.g. this paper linked from another comment in this discussion: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518
  - chrisjj 2mo ago
    Paper says "These scenarios underscore a crucial challenge in AI safety: ensuring that LLMs were truthful in the first place." Hard to take seriously any research based on the premise that LLMs were truthful in the first placr. These chatbots have no understanding of truth. They simply parrot their inputs. Where fed falsehoods, they will output falsehoods - with a sprinkling of added fabrications euphemistically excused as "hallucinations".
    - ben_w 2mo ago
      > These chatbots have no understanding of truth. Sometimes I forget that for all that my philosophy qualification is mediocre, it is more than most people ever bother with. Outside mathematics (and, I guess, "common sense" definitions that fail under the slightest scrutiny, scrutiny that normal people never bother to give), there is no agreement on "truth", there is only degree of belief and justification for that belief that itself terminates in one of three unsatisfactory ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma > Where fed falsehoods, they will output falsehoods - with a sprinkling of added fabrications euphemistically excused as "hallucinations". Tu quoque. Which would be a fallacious charge if the point were not that "truth" is so hard to define, and that the reason you give for dismissing AI is something that applies to all. (Hallucinations are not excused, they are a failure to be worked around).
UqWBcuFx6NV4r 2mo ago
Nobody was confused or misled by what was written. We all understand what is meant. I can’t even call this pedantry—it’s just you asking everyone to subscribe to your particular desired style of talking about this stuff.
- infinite_spin 2mo ago
  It's also a style that appears to deny the very first definition most dictionaries give for "intelligence" > the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - chrisjj 2mo ago
    The first five dictionaries I tried do not agree, and I didn't bother trying more. The first gave "the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason", by which no, these bots are not intelligent.
    - infinite_spin 2mo ago
      > the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason Agentic systems do this all the time. For example, I can point an agent at my codebase, and it will learn, understand, and make judgements based on that input. If this weren't happening, then agentic coding wouldn't work.
      - chrisjj 2mo ago
        You've been fooled by a next-token predictor.
        birdsongs 2mo ago
        Does it matter whether it meets the criteria of what you define as "intelligent" when the "next token predictor" throws a backdoor into openssh?
weird-eye-issue 2mo ago
Give it a rest
Dylan16807 2mo ago
An "honest mistake" requires the same amount of intelligence as malice. What weird pedantry.
- conorcleary 2mo ago
  and neither require high amounts :(

by chrisjj 2mo ago

mcv 2mo ago

So does honesty. So it was still a false claim.

chrisjj 2mo ago
Honesty does not require intelligence e.g. good honest food. The main problem with this claim of dishonesty is it promotes the false marketing claim that these stochastic parrots have intelligence.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- moritzwarhier 2mo ago
  I think you misunderstand the phrase "honest food". It's not about the bread being honest with you. Are you being serious?
ben_w 2mo ago
Squirrels have been observed performing deception against other squirrels. Dis/honesty certainly requires some intelligence to pass, but it is a low bar, and one which research has shown that LLMs can perform, e.g. this paper linked from another comment in this discussion: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518
- chrisjj 2mo ago
  Paper says "These scenarios underscore a crucial challenge in AI safety: ensuring that LLMs were truthful in the first place." Hard to take seriously any research based on the premise that LLMs were truthful in the first placr. These chatbots have no understanding of truth. They simply parrot their inputs. Where fed falsehoods, they will output falsehoods - with a sprinkling of added fabrications euphemistically excused as "hallucinations".
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    > These chatbots have no understanding of truth. Sometimes I forget that for all that my philosophy qualification is mediocre, it is more than most people ever bother with. Outside mathematics (and, I guess, "common sense" definitions that fail under the slightest scrutiny, scrutiny that normal people never bother to give), there is no agreement on "truth", there is only degree of belief and justification for that belief that itself terminates in one of three unsatisfactory ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma > Where fed falsehoods, they will output falsehoods - with a sprinkling of added fabrications euphemistically excused as "hallucinations". Tu quoque. Which would be a fallacious charge if the point were not that "truth" is so hard to define, and that the reason you give for dismissing AI is something that applies to all. (Hallucinations are not excused, they are a failure to be worked around).

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 2mo ago

Nobody was confused or misled by what was written. We all understand what is meant. I can’t even call this pedantry—it’s just you asking everyone to subscribe to your particular desired style of talking about this stuff.

infinite_spin 2mo ago
It's also a style that appears to deny the very first definition most dictionaries give for "intelligence" > the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- chrisjj 2mo ago
  The first five dictionaries I tried do not agree, and I didn't bother trying more. The first gave "the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason", by which no, these bots are not intelligent.
  - infinite_spin 2mo ago
    > the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason Agentic systems do this all the time. For example, I can point an agent at my codebase, and it will learn, understand, and make judgements based on that input. If this weren't happening, then agentic coding wouldn't work.
    - chrisjj 2mo ago
      You've been fooled by a next-token predictor.
      - birdsongs 2mo ago
        Does it matter whether it meets the criteria of what you define as "intelligent" when the "next token predictor" throws a backdoor into openssh?

weird-eye-issue 2mo ago

Give it a rest

Dylan16807 2mo ago

An "honest mistake" requires the same amount of intelligence as malice. What weird pedantry.

conorcleary 2mo ago
and neither require high amounts :(