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

• gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I disagree. This is no meaningful talking point. It doesn’t help anyone in practice. Sure, it clears legal questions of responsibility (and I’m not even sure about that one in the future), but apart from that, making an artificial distinction between a human and a looks-and-acts-like-human, provides no real-world value.

  source

  • merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Sure it does, because assigning agency to LLMs is like “the dice are lucky” or “this coin I’m flipping hates me”. LLMs are massively complex and very good at simulating human-generated text. But, there’s no agency there. As soon as people start thinking there’s agency they start thinking that LLMs are “making decisions”, or “being deceptive”. But, it’s just spicy autocomplete. We know exactly how it works, and there’s no thinking involved. There’s no planning. There’s no consciousness. There’s just spitting out the next word based in an insanely deep training data set.

    source

    • gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I believe that at a certain point, “agency” is an emergent feature. That means that, while all the single bits are well understood probability-wise, the total picture is still more than that.

      It makes sense to me to accept that if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, for a lot (but not all) of important purposes.

      source

      • Skates@feddit.nl ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        If I were to send you a video of a duck quacking, would you abandon going to the supermarket in the hope that your computer/phone/whatever you watch it on will now be able to lay eggs?

        Listen. It was made to look like a duck. It was made to quack like a duck. It is not a duck. It is a painting of a duck. It won’t fly, it won’t lay eggs, it won’t feel pain, it won’t shit all over the floors. It’s not a damn duck, and pretending it is just because it looks like it and it quacks, is like wanting to marry a fleshlight because it’s really good at sex and never disagrees with you. Sure, go ahead and do it - but don’t goddamn expect it to actually give birth, that’s not its purpose.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Do you understand how they work or not? First I take all human text online. Next, I rank how likely those words come after another. Last write a loop getting the next possible word until the end line character is thought to be most probable. There you go that’s essentially the loop of an LLM. There are design elements that make creating the training data quicker, or the model quicker at picking the next word but at the core this is all they do.

        It makes sense to me to accept that if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, for a lot (but not all) of important purposes.

        I.e. the only duck it walks and quacks like is autocomplete, it does not have agency or any other “emergent” features. For something to even have an emergent property, the system needs to have feedback from itself, which an LLM does not.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        “agency” is an emergent feature.

        But, it’s not. It’s something people attribute to the random series of words that are generated, but no agency exists.

        It makes sense to me to accept that if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck

        Or it’s a video of a duck, which means it’s not a duck. In this case, just because it fools people into thinking there’s consciousness / agency doesn’t mean there actually is any.

        source
  • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The current models that we have, running in inference mode, are t1 systems. Criminal law requires defendants to be able to understand guilt as a prerequisite of having a guilty mind, that’s why asylums for the criminally insane exist because not even all humans can do that. You’re trying to apply that standard to an overcomplicated thermostat.

    source
  • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If your parrot or budgie picks up some of the words you frequently use and reproduces them with a wrong context, would you consider your pet lying? Because that’s what ChatGPT basically is, a digital parrot.

    source
  • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Chaptgpt is a very very very very large algorithm that uses language instead of numbers, and runs off of patterns found within the data set that is plugged into the algorithm.

    Theres a gulf of meaning between distinguishing between a calculator that uses words instead of numbers and a person.

    source