Comment

Comment on Study finds that Chat GPT will cheat when given the opportunity and lie to cover it up later.

They said “it just repeats words that simulate human responses,” and I’d say that concisely answers your question.

Antropomorphizing inanimate objects and machines is fine for offering a rough explanation of what is happening, but when you’re trying to critically evaluate something, you probably want to offer a more rigid understanding.

In this case, it might be fair to tell a child that the AI is lying to us, and that it’s wrong. But if you want a more serious discussion on what GPT is doing, you’re going to have to drop the simple explanation. You can’t ascribe ethics to what GPT is doing here. Lying is an ethical decision, one that GPT doesn’t make.

source

Sort:hotnew top

FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
If you want to get into a full blown discussion of whether ChatGPT has "agency" then I'd open the topic of whether humans have "agency" as well. But I don't see the need here.

These words were perfectly fine labels for describing the behaviour of ChatGPT in this scenario. I'm merely annoyed about how people are jumping on them and going off on philosophical digressions that add nothing.

source
- UberMentch@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I think the reason I’m not comfortable with using the term “lying” is because it implies some sort of negative connotation. When you say that someone lies, it comes with an understanding that they made a choice to lie, usually with ill intent. I agree, we don’t need to get into a philosophical discussion on choice and free will. But I think saying something like “GPT lies” is a bit irresponsible for the purposes of a discussion
  
  source
FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
If you want to get down into the nitty-gritty of it, I'd say that this is just as rough an explanation of what humans are doing.

People invent false memories and confabulate all the time without even being "aware" of it. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of "lies" that humans tell have no intentionality behind them. So when people get all uptight about applying anthropomorphized terminology to LLMs, I think that's a good time to turn it around and ask how they're so sure that those terms apply differently to humans.

source
- DarkGamer@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  People invent false memories and confabulate all the time without even being "aware" of it. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of "lies" that humans tell have no intentionality behind them.
  
  Humans understand symbology of concepts as they relate to the real world. If I stole a cookie from the cookie jar, and someone asked if I took one, I would understand that saying "no" would mean that I was misrepresenting reality, and therefore lying.
  
  LLMs have no idea what a cookie is, what taking one means, or that saying one thing and doing another implies a lie. It just sees lists of words and returns them in an order it thinks would be a meaningful reply. It does not understand what words mean, what lying means, or have any idea how to classify anything as such. It just figures out that "did you take a cookie from the cookie jar" should return a series of words in an order like "yes, I took a cookie," or, "no I never took a cookie," because those fit the patterns matched in the training data.
  
  Essentially it's the Chinese room problem. There is no understanding or intentionality .
  
  source
  - 0ops@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    LLMs have no idea what a cookie is
    
    The large language model takes in language, so it’s only understand things in terms of language. This isn’t surprising. Personally, I’ve tasted a cookie. I’ve crushed one in my fist watching it crumble, and I remember the sound. I’ve seen how they were made, and I’ve made them myself. It feels good when I eat it, apparently that’s the dopamine. Why can’t the LLM understand cookies the way I do? The most glaring difference is it doesn’t have my body. It doesn’t have all of my different senses constantly feeding data into it, and it doesn’t have a body with muscles to manipulate it’s environment, and observe the results. I argue that we shouldn’t assume that human consciousness has a “special sauce” until our model’s inputs and outputs are similar to ours, the model’s scaled/modified sufficiently, and it’s still not sentient/sapient by our standards, whatever they are.
    
    My problem with the Chinese room is that how it applies depends on scale. Where do you draw the line between understanding and executing a program? An atom bonding with another atom? A lipid snuggling next to a neighboring lipid? A single neuron cell firing to its neighbor? One section of the nervous system sending signals to the other? One homo sapien speaking to another? Hell, let’s go one further: one culture influencing another? Do we actually have free will and sapience, or are we just complicated enough, through layers and layers of Chinese rooms inside of Chinese buildings inside of Chinese cities inside of China itself, that we assume that we are for practical purposes?
    
    source
- UberMentch@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I suppose the issue here is more semantics than anything, yeah. I think better discussion would be had if the topic was “how can we help LLMs better understand and present information,” as opposed to a more sensational “GPT will cheat and lie”
  
  source