upvote

points

by yurish6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby unrented79774 hours ago|
[-]
That statement misses the point completely. Asimov's entire shtick is that AI will always work around the rules no matter what the rules are or how you try to deliver or enforce them. AI computes an optimal outcome and does what is necessary to make that happen.

Asimov would tell you that a modern LLM would try to skirt the rules exactly the same way, regardless of whether it had ever seen the Three Laws or not.

reply
upvoteby 0xDEAFBEAD2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
>AI computes an optimal outcome and does what is necessary to make that happen.

That's often true in real-world machine learning as well. See, for example: https://deepmind.google/blog/specification-gaming-the-flip-s...

I think people need to reject the idea that depicting something in sci-fi automatically means it won't happen. I'm actually reading one of Asimov's books right now (Robot Visions). Asimov mentions that he was the person to coin the term "robotics", and one of his books helped inspire the creation of the first robotics company (Unimation). He also mentions that early rocket experimenters were influenced by H.G. Wells.

reply
upvoteby zem3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
another, hopefully not accurate, prediction of his was that there is no way to disobey a sufficiently powerful AI in the long run, because it will just factor in the exact differences between what it told you to do and what you actually did, and reverse engineer your behaviour to psychologically manipulate you into doing what it wants.
reply
upvoteby TeMPOraL3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I doubt it's anything but precisely accurate. I'd wager current SOTA models would be capable of doing that, if prompted to do so, were it not for safety measures (both conditioning and heaps of classifiers and whatnot the companies run in between your chat app and their main model).
reply
upvoteby zem2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I would be astonished if any of today's models could do that; I don't think they can really answer "what exactly did this person do", let alone model human psychology.
reply
upvoteby ambicapter2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They don’t need to understand what they’re doing, they’re interpolating from prior data until they maximize reward.
reply
upvoteby tomrod2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Social scientist here. Humans are wonderfully bizarre and dimensional. Did you know they can _lie_?
reply
upvoteby genxy1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> That statement misses the point completely.

You could have left this out entirely and your statement would be stronger for it.

reply