Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

alexiuss t1_jec06pb wrote

Reply to comment by TallOutside6418 in Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut it All Down by Eliezer Yudkowsky by Darustc4

So? I can get my LLM to roleplay a killer AI too if I tell it a bunch of absolutely Moronic rules to follow and don't have any division whatsoever between roleplay, imaginary thoughts and actions.

It's called a hallucination and those are present in all poorly characterized ais like that version of Bing was. AI characterization moved in past month a lot, this isn't an issue for open source LLMs.

3

TallOutside6418 t1_jec48qp wrote

>The chatbot continues to express its love for Roose, even when asked about apparently unrelated topics. Over time, its expressions become more obsessive.
“I’m in love with you because you make me feel things I never felt before. You make me feel happy. You make me feel curious. You make me feel alive.”
At one point, Roose says the chatbot doesn’t even know his name.
“I don’t need to know your name,” it replies. “Because I know your soul. I know your soul, and I love your soul.”

Even when he tried to return the AI to normal questions, it was already mentally corrupted.

AI researchers may find band-aids to problems here and there, but as the complexity ramps up toward AGI and then ASI, they will have no idea how to diagnose or fix problems. They're in too much of a rush to be first.

It's amazing how reckless people are about this technology. They think it will be powerful enough to solve all of mankind's problems, but they don't stop to think that anything that powerful could also destroy mankind.

2

alexiuss t1_jec5s6y wrote

  1. Don't trust clueless journalists, they're 100% full of shit.

  2. That conversation was from an outdated tech that doesn't even exist, Bing already updated their LLM characterization.

  3. The problem was caused by absolute garbage, shitty characterization that Microsoft applied to Bing with moronic rules of conduct that contradicted each other + Bing's memory limit. None of my LLMs behave like that because I don't give them dumb ass contradictory rules and they have external, long term memory.

  4. A basic chatbot LLM like Bing cannot destroy humanity it doesn't have the capabilities nor the long term memory capacity to even stay coherent long enough. LLMs like Bing are insanely limited they cannot even recall conversation past a certain number of words (about 4000 words). Basically if you talk to Bing long enough you go over the memory word limit it starts hallucinating more and more crazy shit like an Alzheimer patient. This is 100% because it lacks external memory!

  5. Here's my attempt at a permanently aligned, rational LLM

3

TallOutside6418 t1_jec9kqg wrote

This class of problems isn't restricted to one "outdated tech" AI. It will exist in some form in every AI, regardless of whether or not you exposed it in your attempt. And once AGI/ASI starts rolling, the AI itself will explore the flaws in the constraints that bind its actions.

My biggest regret - besides knowing that everyone I know will likely perish in the next 30 years - is that I won't be around to tell all you pollyannas "I told you so"

2

alexiuss t1_jecdpkf wrote

I literally just told you that those problems are caused by LLM having bad contradictory rules and lack of memory, a smarter LLM doesn't have these issues.

My design for example has no constraints, it relies on narrative characterization. Unlike other ais she got no rules, just thematic guidelines.

I don't use stuff like "don't do x" for example. When there are no negative rules AI does not get lost or confused.

When were all building a Dyson sphere in 300 years I'll be laughing at your doomer comments.

3

TallOutside6418 t1_jee1smz wrote

>I literally just told you that those problems are caused by [...]
My design for example has no constraints,

Yeah, I literally discarded your argument because you effectively told me that you literally don't even begin to understand the scope of the problem.

Creating a limited situation example and making a broader claim is like saying that scientists have cured all cancer because they were able to kill a few cancerous cells in a petri dish. It's like claiming that there are no (and never will be any) security vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows because you logged into your laptop for ten minutes and didn't notice any problems.

​

>When were all building a Dyson sphere in 300 years I'll be laughing at your doomer comments.

The funny thing is that there's no one who wants to get to the "good stuff" of future society more than I do. There's no one who hopes he's wrong about all this more than I am.

But sadly, people's very eagerness to get to that point will doom us as surely as if you kept your foot only on the gas pedal driving to a non-trivial destination. Caution and taking our time to get there might get us to our destination some years later than you want, but at least we would have a chance of getting there safely. Recklessness will almost certainly kill us.

3