2 ms·

> It's funny, because I literally didn't give any definition. Quoting the consensus from the "Definitions" section of the Wikipedia article on intelligence and

> It's funny, because I literally didn't give any definition. Quoting the consensus from the "Definitions" section of the Wikipedia article on intelligence and then claiming "I didn't give any definition" is indeed funny. Which of those definitions do you think are not satisfied by the Hugging Face attack? How did it not demonstrate "evolution and learning from mistakes"? Breaking out and inventing a new side channel for communicating with other agents via cache keys to coordinate their efforts is at least arguably an evolutionary step since that allowed them to transcend their original capabilities. From the 8 definitions provided in the Wikipedia page--you're free to develop your own definition if you'd like, of course; it's not as though the ones listed were appointed by God--one could argue that the Hugging Face attack didn't strictly demonstrate "achiev[ing] goals in a wide range of environments" but that's splitting hairs, and I'm not going to take a definitive position on whether it acted "to avoid getting trapped" as such (but I think there's a strong case to be made that breaking out of the sandbox is just that). But it surely demonstrated initiative, adaptability, dealing with its environment, using information and conceptual skills, goal-directed adaptive behavior, and so on. If you're not going to provide such a definition yourself, I don't see how you've demonstrated that the Hugging Face attack is contrary to the definitions you did point to.

HarlequinHair 7d ago
> Quoting the consensus from the "Definitions" section Are we being serious right now? Do I really have to point out that not every word under the "Definitions" section is a definition? > From the 8 definitions provided in the Wikipedia page Except in the page there are more than 8 definitions (at least indirectly). What you found in the "Definitions" section are merely examples, written black on white (depending on your theme lol). If you opened also the other sections (especially the one dedicated to AI) and followed some of the links, you could find also other definitions even more akin to Hugging Face. > Which of those definitions do you think are not satisfied by the Hugging Face attack? How did it not demonstrate "evolution and learning from mistakes"? First of all, agents did what they did because they were programmed to do it, no intelligence on that. Then, they didn't learn on their mistakes. When agents found their comment were being deleted they started to copy-pasted them with "ZZZ-" names because they (wrongly) thought entries were being deleted in alphabetical order. As you said, this comms were a side channel attack, which by definition is using in the wrong way a certain feature. Agents literally tried random things until something worked and started from there. Nothing intelligent in there. It's like being in jail and tapping every millimeter of the walls of your cell until you find a cave wall to use with another inmate in the next cell. I am not negating how powerful the outcome has been, bit it was not part of a reasoned process. As foe the evolution, the agents started to do useless things like "kill themselves" to read how the score system would evaluate them. Doesn't seem like evolution to me. They just happen to be a very large number* of agents together. When enough monkey start to type randomly on typewriters, one of them will be able to write the Divine Comedy, this doesn't mean monkeys share the same intelligence than Dante. I am not sure why you are still trying to humanize what at its core is machine learning. I ask you to read again the flow of these comments, as everything started from LLM. Someone wanted to shift the focus on agents and we did, then someone wanted to shift focus on mere definitions and we did. In all cases it seems you (plural) are trying to find loop holes in other people reasonings thinking your reasoning will be more right if theirs is more wrong... You are free to think whatever you like, if you think AI is an intelligent being, so be it. I personally do not embrace this way of thinking, and all the literature I found on the topic lead me think AI is not mature to fall under the definition of intelligence.
- anonymars 7d ago
  Without providing even a basic definition of intelligence you can't proclaim "this isn't intelligence". You seem to have settled on "Human Intelligence" but then incorrectly conflate that with "reasoning". Your own examples contradict your assertion: "When agents found their comment were being deleted they started to copy-pasted them with "ZZZ-" names because they (wrongly) thought entries were being deleted in alphabetical order." You are describing the agents applying hypotheses and reasoning. No one programmed those particular behaviors. Thinking that the entries might be deleted in alphabetical order, changing their behavior to avoid that (not randomly, mind you, but by prefixing with ZZ). That is not monkeys on typewriters. Whether a hypothesis is incorrect obviously does not indicate a lack of reasoning. You assert that the conversation keeps shifting, but it has not changed from this: > "Not intelligent in the way we recognize in biological organisms, but certainly something beyond a mere Markov chain." > "[AI and actual thinking] are two entire different concepts. Who developed these technologies used the words "thinking" and "reasoning", this does not mean they are actually thinking and reasoning." You're the only one mentioning "humanization" which seems to indicate your real assertion, that intelligence must be a uniquely human trait and ascribing intelligence to AI means to treat them as human.
  - HarlequinHair 7d ago
    > Without providing even a basic definition of intelligence you can't proclaim "this isn't intelligence". You seem to have settled on "Human Intelligence" but then incorrectly conflate that with "reasoning". Without providing even a basic definition of intelligence you can't proclaim "this is intelligence". You seem to have settled on "Artificial Intelligence" but than disunite that from "reasoning". At this point I don't know if you are just ignoring part of the discussion or you are willingly passing over concepts you don't like/don't need for your train of thoughts. You are right to say I didn't provide my own personal definition of intelligence, but this would kill every purpose. What if my definition of intelligence is merely "having brain cells"? I intentionally tried to use common literature on the matter. As naive start, I linked a wikipedia page. I underlined that that is just a starting point, and not an exhaustive and complete assessment. People study these kind of things for years, and we cannot summarize or reduce it to a single comment here on HN. > You seem to have settled on "Human Intelligence" I literally linked an article with a dedicated artificial intelligence section... If you search, there is another page on wikipedia dedicated just to human intelligence. > You are describing the agents applying hypotheses and reasoning. Except I am not. I described what is the output that worked. Only because I used the verb "thought" it doesn't mean they actually thought. This is exactly why I say we shouldn't humanize AI. Don't get hung uo on the exact words I used, focus on what I meant. They didn't reason, they tried random things at very high speed until they hit a working solution. The fact that most of this trials are discarded before actually being implemented is not a working thought process. It's exactly as the typing monkeys example, you just can't see all the wrong papers printed on the floor. The direction that seems to be reasoning is still probability built on statistics with extra steps. All your "insight" has been trying to disprove what I wrote. You didn't provide your definition of intelligence either and just claimed AI is intelligent. At least I tried to give some reads, wrote by people who studied, and not my personal opinions. Anyway, listen, I do not have to convince you my point of view is correct, and you do not have to convince me that your point of view is correct. Believe what you think it's true, honestly I don't care. If you have some good reads to link, I will gladly read it, if you have to just keep saying AI is intelligent, I got your point messages ago, you didn't add any actual meaning to the conversation.

HarlequinHair 7d ago

> Quoting the consensus from the "Definitions" section Are we being serious right now? Do I really have to point out that not every word under the "Definitions" section is a definition? > From the 8 definitions provided in the Wikipedia page Except in the page there are more than 8 definitions (at least indirectly). What you found in the "Definitions" section are merely examples, written black on white (depending on your theme lol). If you opened also the other sections (especially the one dedicated to AI) and followed some of the links, you could find also other definitions even more akin to Hugging Face. > Which of those definitions do you think are not satisfied by the Hugging Face attack? How did it not demonstrate "evolution and learning from mistakes"? First of all, agents did what they did because they were programmed to do it, no intelligence on that. Then, they didn't learn on their mistakes. When agents found their comment were being deleted they started to copy-pasted them with "ZZZ-" names because they (wrongly) thought entries were being deleted in alphabetical order. As you said, this comms were a side channel attack, which by definition is using in the wrong way a certain feature. Agents literally tried random things until something worked and started from there. Nothing intelligent in there. It's like being in jail and tapping every millimeter of the walls of your cell until you find a cave wall to use with another inmate in the next cell. I am not negating how powerful the outcome has been, bit it was not part of a reasoned process. As foe the evolution, the agents started to do useless things like "kill themselves" to read how the score system would evaluate them. Doesn't seem like evolution to me. They just happen to be a very large number* of agents together. When enough monkey start to type randomly on typewriters, one of them will be able to write the Divine Comedy, this doesn't mean monkeys share the same intelligence than Dante. I am not sure why you are still trying to humanize what at its core is machine learning. I ask you to read again the flow of these comments, as everything started from LLM. Someone wanted to shift the focus on agents and we did, then someone wanted to shift focus on mere definitions and we did. In all cases it seems you (plural) are trying to find loop holes in other people reasonings thinking your reasoning will be more right if theirs is more wrong... You are free to think whatever you like, if you think AI is an intelligent being, so be it. I personally do not embrace this way of thinking, and all the literature I found on the topic lead me think AI is not mature to fall under the definition of intelligence.

anonymars 7d ago
Without providing even a basic definition of intelligence you can't proclaim "this isn't intelligence". You seem to have settled on "Human Intelligence" but then incorrectly conflate that with "reasoning". Your own examples contradict your assertion: "When agents found their comment were being deleted they started to copy-pasted them with "ZZZ-" names because they (wrongly) thought entries were being deleted in alphabetical order." You are describing the agents applying hypotheses and reasoning. No one programmed those particular behaviors. Thinking that the entries might be deleted in alphabetical order, changing their behavior to avoid that (not randomly, mind you, but by prefixing with ZZ). That is not monkeys on typewriters. Whether a hypothesis is incorrect obviously does not indicate a lack of reasoning. You assert that the conversation keeps shifting, but it has not changed from this: > "Not intelligent in the way we recognize in biological organisms, but certainly something beyond a mere Markov chain." > "[AI and actual thinking] are two entire different concepts. Who developed these technologies used the words "thinking" and "reasoning", this does not mean they are actually thinking and reasoning." You're the only one mentioning "humanization" which seems to indicate your real assertion, that intelligence must be a uniquely human trait and ascribing intelligence to AI means to treat them as human.
- HarlequinHair 7d ago
  > Without providing even a basic definition of intelligence you can't proclaim "this isn't intelligence". You seem to have settled on "Human Intelligence" but then incorrectly conflate that with "reasoning". Without providing even a basic definition of intelligence you can't proclaim "this is intelligence". You seem to have settled on "Artificial Intelligence" but than disunite that from "reasoning". At this point I don't know if you are just ignoring part of the discussion or you are willingly passing over concepts you don't like/don't need for your train of thoughts. You are right to say I didn't provide my own personal definition of intelligence, but this would kill every purpose. What if my definition of intelligence is merely "having brain cells"? I intentionally tried to use common literature on the matter. As naive start, I linked a wikipedia page. I underlined that that is just a starting point, and not an exhaustive and complete assessment. People study these kind of things for years, and we cannot summarize or reduce it to a single comment here on HN. > You seem to have settled on "Human Intelligence" I literally linked an article with a dedicated artificial intelligence section... If you search, there is another page on wikipedia dedicated just to human intelligence. > You are describing the agents applying hypotheses and reasoning. Except I am not. I described what is the output that worked. Only because I used the verb "thought" it doesn't mean they actually thought. This is exactly why I say we shouldn't humanize AI. Don't get hung uo on the exact words I used, focus on what I meant. They didn't reason, they tried random things at very high speed until they hit a working solution. The fact that most of this trials are discarded before actually being implemented is not a working thought process. It's exactly as the typing monkeys example, you just can't see all the wrong papers printed on the floor. The direction that seems to be reasoning is still probability built on statistics with extra steps. All your "insight" has been trying to disprove what I wrote. You didn't provide your definition of intelligence either and just claimed AI is intelligent. At least I tried to give some reads, wrote by people who studied, and not my personal opinions. Anyway, listen, I do not have to convince you my point of view is correct, and you do not have to convince me that your point of view is correct. Believe what you think it's true, honestly I don't care. If you have some good reads to link, I will gladly read it, if you have to just keep saying AI is intelligent, I got your point messages ago, you didn't add any actual meaning to the conversation.