Comment on Leading AI Models Are Completely Flunking the Three Laws of Robotics

Reverendender@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• tal@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  The real question is whether the author doesn’t understand what he’s writing about, or whether he does and is trying to take advantage of users who don’t for clicks.

  source

  • Fingolfinz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Most likely the clicks

    source
  • MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Maybe the author let AI write the article?

    source
  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    ¿Por que no los dos?

    source
• Draegur@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Yeah, that’s where my mind is at too.

  AI in its present form does not act. It does not do things. All it does is generate text. If a human responds to this text in harmful ways, that is human action. I suppose you could make a robot whose input is somehow triggered by the text, but neither it nor the text generator know what’s happening or why.

  I’m so fucking tired of the way uninformed people keep anthropomorphizing this shit and projecting their own motives upon things that have no will or experiential qualia.

  source

  • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    agentic ai is a thing. AI can absolutely do things… it can send commands over an api which sends signals to electronics, like pulling triggers

    source
• brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Clickbait.

  source
• SculptusPoe@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  More random anti-ai fear mongering. I stopped looking at r/technology posts in reddit because that sub is getting flooded with anti-ai propoganda posts with rediculous headlines like this…

  source

  • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Since “AI” doesn’t actually exist yet and what we do have is sucking up all the power and water while accelerating climate change. Add in studies showing regular usage of LLM’s is reducing peoples critical thinking I don’t see much “fear mongering”. I see actual reasonable issues being raised.

    source
• masterofn001@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  If a program is given a set of instructions, it should produce that set of instructions.

  If a program not only does not produce those instructions, but gives itself its own set of instructions, and the programmers don’t understand what’s actually happening, that may be cause for concern.

  “Self aware” or not.

  source

  • smiletolerantly@awful.systems ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    It’s a goddamn stochastic parrot, starting from zero on each invocation and spitting out something passing for coherence according to its training set.

    “Not understanding what is happening” in regards to AI is NOT “we don’t jniw how it works mechanically” it’s “yeah there are so many parameters, it’s just not possible to make sense of / keep track of them all”.

    There’s no awareness or thought.

    source

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      There may be thought in a sense.

      A good analogy might be a static biological “brain” custom grown to predict a list of possible next words in a block of text. It’s thinking, in a sense. Maybe it could acknowledge itself in a mirror. That doesn’t mean it’s self aware, though: It’s an unchanging organ.

      And if one wants to go down the rabbit hole of “well there are different types of sentience, lines blur,” yada yada, with the end point of that being to treat things like they are…

      All ML models are tools.

      For now.

      source