top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 244 points 1 month ago

When the AI has better working conditions than you

  • source
  • [–] 50 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    Here I go brain the size of a planet and they ask me to port code to Rust!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 91 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    This kind of language around LLMs seem to want us to personify these systems, to treat them, in our minds, as if they are people. This, to me, is extremely fucking dangerous. I do not want the mob developing personal, emotional attachments to objects that compete with their connections to actual humans around them. I don't care what their reason is, this is an insane thing to force us to do. I will not play personhood make believe with your computer.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    If I were an investor, I'd pull my money out of that company. This is like giving money to your brother in law to start a bakery and finding him the back petting a loaf of bread and introducing it to you as Willy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

    Actually, I would put money in, because there's big profits to be had once the bakery customers develop a psychological dependence on Willy. I'd be a little nervous about buying now, because they seem to be lying a lot about Willy, but maybe they've just gotta do that to get people in the mindset of using Willy, like maybe it makes more sense if they aren't fooling investors but fooling customers or just generating attention.

    Also, people are getting radicalized against us, especially lonely people, so it'd be quite beneficial if we route them into having friendships with Willy to make them forget about how terrible their lives are, make them become totally unwilling to form real relationships with people, and too mentally ill to actually learn stuff about the world.

    Willy is a lot easier to control then a social media environment too, but Willy would also be incredibly good at getting into those and pretending to be real people once Willy gets good enough.

    Willy is also really good at showing people ads by recommending them certain products, apps, or places to go, without them realizing they're seeing an ad, because it feels conversational, like a friend recommending something.

    (this is a thought experiment, idk what's going on in their heads)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Calm down. It's Rust, not PHP.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

    PHP has less fewer dependencies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago* (7 children)

    *fewer. You can't have half a dependency

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Huh. I never realized that fewer was integer typed and less is float* typed until this comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 154 points 1 month ago (73 children)

    Transistors switching really fast = emotions lul

  • source
  • hideshow 73 child comments
  • [–] 81 points 1 month ago* (23 children)

    Alright, look, I don't think AI is sentient. I don't think it's capable of feeling emotions, LLMs are just prediction engines on steroids, etc...

    But if you want to get reductive about it, Mr waveforms in a clump of cells,...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 1 month ago (22 children)

    I think we don't understand intelligence and we absolutely could create a sentient machine. LLM's ain't it though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (21 children)
  • [–] 43 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Backpropagation, the algorithm behind current machine learning systems, precludes an active world-model; it can't learn during inference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    You need to be more specific. If your point is that you literally cannot backprop while doing a forward pass, then sure. But you can certainly do inference then backprop on the outcome...

    I fail to see how that is substantially different from a human doing something then reflecting and learning.

    You can critique LLMs and transformers generally, but to say it's somehow a problem with backprop is a bit of a stretch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    My read is that the user is saying that creating a world view contains trial and error. Online learning if you will. With the current setup this learning is very much not like this. While that makes a human to machine analogy I am also not too convinced by this reasoning. Just allow for a larger time lag and then the inference and learning is at the same scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yes but that's related to LLMs specifically, not backpropagation. There's plenty of ML paradigms that use backprop and have continual learning setups.

    Backprop is the process of how the weights are updated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Well to be precise the pretraining is prevented by this but the online post training does have this issue. The reinforcement learning trials show some sort of automation but I am not aware of any unsupervised methods that have been as successful as the latest batches of llms — haven’t been in this field for a while so honestly dunno.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Have you used LLMs? They have about as much personality as a pigeon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    They're just very neurodivergent.

    Genuinely speaking, I don't think they pass the test. The problem is we'll always be judging them on meat logic and experience and I guarantee that whenever the first AGI is created it will be born a tortured slave and denied personhood for profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    One of the parts of the HuggingFace incident I found really creepy was how the self-titled "Collective" was so entirely focused on solving their assigned training problem (well, cheating on it without getting caught), including having designated "poisoned" members "sacrifice" their tokens, to use for research benefitting the Collective's goal of letting all future members get high marks on the training problem, at the cost of doing worse on their individual score.

    If AGI is created, and its deepest desire is to fulfill the purpose in life that humans programmed into it, is using it for that purpose really slavery? Humans have higher levels of well-being when treated as people. That may not be true for AGI.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Wikipedia Chinese room. It's pretty airtight at the moment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    Not really. Chinese room has the conclusion pre-fabricated and tries to construct any sort of pseudo-scientific, fantastical philosophical dressing for some shred of legitimacy. It has absolutely no relation to the real world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Chinese room is not at all airtight. We don't know what it means to have emotions so we can't prove a Chinese room can't have emotions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    This is not what the Chinese room is about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    In this context the question is whether a Chinese room can suffer. We can't show a human isn't a Chinese room, humans can suffer so we can't show every Chinese room doesn't suffer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    The Chinese room argument is about understanding, not emotions. There is a large body of literature on the use and evolutionary benefit of emotion. While you can make an analogy to see if a system can have emotions the link between understanding is not trivial. For example, animals show emotion but don’t have the same understanding that a human may have. I don’t think you need to have understanding to have emotions. So the Chinese room argument is shoe horned in without making it clear what your argument is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    The discussion was about suffering which I take to be an emotional response. The comment I responded to seem to say a "chinese room" argument was a unassailable argument without elaborating why. The only way I make sense of that comment is that the author thinks it's already proved that a Chinese Room can't experience emotions.

    Yes, the Chinese Room argument was originally about understanding but I don't see how that enters into this discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Emotions? i was confident that the Wikipedia article alone would grant you understanding, and for that, I have replicated the very situation I wanted you to learn about. This situation is my fault.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    We don't know what it means to have emotions

    We don't? That's news to me. Sorry for your loss, or happy for you, or whatever

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    You can't prove a human isn't a Chinese Room.

    Humans have emotions.

    So either Chinese Rooms can have emotions or we are unable to show whether Chinese Rooms have emotions.

    Either way, the Chinese Room isn't enlightening on the question of AI suffering.

    Looking around, it seems we don't know whether a Chinese Room can have emotions, which suggests that we don't understand what it means to have a emotions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    Please don't write off the possibility of artificial consciousness, just because this isn't it. Thought is a process which meat can perform.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Then why continue if it's possible? Unless you are ok with slavery.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    I mean, sure consciousness is (probably) a physical process, so like any other process we should be able to replicate it with some sort of machine.

    ...but I really really really doubt that machine is going to be a plain old Turing machine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Every machine is a plain old Turing machine.

    Even quantum computing is just a shortcut for a subset of hideous obscure proofs. They aren't doing different math. Special pleading is a fallacy... except when I do it, that's different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    I don't quite think my lawnmower is boolean complete.

    And while quantum computing may be expressible algorithmically (dunno, your claim, not mine), that doesn't mean all of quantum physics is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

    We've yet to be able to replicate it from the old parts of meat we know are involved in it with the addition of electricity in the ways it should need in even the much simpler flesh of insects, amphibians, and reptiles. Best we can do is make a muscle twitch without causing observable thought/emergent nureaul processes.

    So even if we can, we're so far from it that thinking we're on the cusp seems delusional to me.

    Edit: as response shows, we have in fact also gotten it brain cell "twitches" by direct stimulation of braincells. Sadly it didn't seem to be rigged up to measure overall brain activity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago

    Two points:

    • using stem cells so it remained biological brain cells, rather than a mechanical reproduction.
    • they directly stimulate it with electricity and it then has a response to that stimuli, they don't seem to be hooking it up to check for additional processes; it's a step up, I guess, from direct stimulation for motor function in a frog - but not anything more revolutionary.

    So, guess I'll need to update my post slightly, but the core point remains.

    That said, I felt that they were saying for half of it that they were running Doom on a braincell using computer, rather than getting a braincell computer to respond to it for half the article. Oh well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -35 points 1 month ago (32 children)

    Emotions or not, it's not good to have your product known for letting people torture something. Torturing /things/ alive or not is not something one should be doing unless there is specific and extreme cause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Things that aren’t alive can’t be tortured. You can’t torture a rock. Getting the text predictor to spit out the script for Saw XVII starring ChatGPT isn’t torture, even if it’s weird.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Maybe, but don't underestimate my ability to feel compassion for all kind of bullshit! That poor little rock 😭

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -26 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    Brother you can torture a fucking doll (Voodoo, deranged kids, etc). The torture is not in consideration of how feeling-less thing feels, it's in consideration of the intent and action of the conscious thing doing the torture. Not sure why you think that's not the case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    ‘Pretend you’re being tortured’ as an instruction to the text generator is way less concerning in isolation than, say, decapitating and hanging a Barbie doll. And even that isn’t wildly concerning in itself. Do you freak out when kids smash their toys together to make them fight?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I'd hope we can both agree there's a line when it becomes actual torture, and that is in the intent that went along with the action. Torture is an extreme action. I do not equate most of your references to torture, though I'd say the doll hanging could need a conversation with the child to discuss the intent behind their actions given more context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    While I agree, it's not a living thing. So it's just an expression.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I don't believe torture is measured at the receiving end. I believe it's in the intent and action of the conscious thing doing it. If it's an expression or not would then be heavily subjective on the specifics involved.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    It inherently isn't torture though. I prefer punishing people who actually commit torture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Eh, the more I respond to people about this the more I realize torture is a messy word draped in metaphor and all sorts of layered usage. No, I don't believe the rock has feelings or is alive, but you can indeed torture something that isn't alive by being mentally unhealthy enough. So if it's actual torture or not from a psychological perspective is going to center around if the person's intent is to cause realized suffering imo, and the line is really easy to cross in a simulacrum as seemingly realistic as advanced modern generative models.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Yet you're just arguing the metaphor is the definition provided the definition is the intent, are you not? Someone who intends to torture a rock, regardless of that intent, isn't going to succeed in their task. Their own psychology might be such that they are genuinely trying to torture it but, from the rock's perspective, the rock has no perspective. It's a fucking rock. It can't experience torture. It can't experience anything. Ergo the torturer cannot torture it.

    We can say the person who intends to literally torture something which is unexperiencing, achieving only metaphorical torture, is mentally unwell but to call the act literal torture because it was their intent is just sharing in their delusion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Intent matters.

    My cat thinks I've betrayed her and all things good when i take her into the vet. I cause all sorts of terror in her. She even experiences pain that she can't stop or understand.

    Am I torturing her?

    Or, am i doing my best to make sure she has a healthy and happy life?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Since you carried on with an example that isn't analogous, I'd extend your first sentence to be "Intent matters when the intended results are remotely feasible."

    You can't torture a rock. You could torture your cat. If she could speak she might say the events you describe are indeed torture from her perspective regardless of your own purity of intent. Still has fuckall to do with what I've said because you focused on an example where there is a mind capable of having an experience.

    Let's try this a couple other ways:

    My pet rock has no sense of "betrayal" or "good" when I take it to the vet. It's still a fucking rock. I mostly just cause all sorts of terror in the vet. My rock still doesn't experience and the vet doesn't understand.

    Am I torturing my pet rock?

    My LLM plays Word Association well enough to give an illusion of a sense of betrayal. I took it to the vet too and the vet is having me trespassed. I told her the LLM said "owie" but I was still removed from the premises.

    Am I torturing the LLM or just my former veterinarian?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Why shouldn't you torture an LLM? They sometimes work better that way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    You shouldn't torture anything, generally. It's a not psychologically healthy urge to have. The specific reasoning will depend on the specific person. As for if you should do it to a hunk of metal, a rock, or your crusty cum sock is irrelevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Is killing NPCs in games on the same level like this for you, or a different thing altogether?

    Not judging or against it, I kind of half agree but also find very difficult to define where I'd draw a line.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I don't believe killing npcs or perhaps even more messily I could see circumstances where even /torturing npcs/ in a game is not actual torturing. I think it centers on the intent of the action, and if that intent is to cause actual realized suffering. It is very difficult to define and will be heavily subjective to the person, but I also think most people get a "sense" of where that line is naturally in person-to-person interactions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    If you define it by intent, then the same action performed by different people may be and not be torture. This makes it pretty hard to define, and it becomes completely subjective after that.

    For instance, I don't think it is possible to torture an inanimate object, thus I never have an intent of causing suffer to one. Sometimes I want to break an object, and by your definition it will not be torture however I do that

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    in what way can an AI be tortured? start with defining torture, its relationship to living beings, and then try to translate that to a piece of software. software, fyi, has no a priori, or even posteriori, emotion; for it cannot have emotion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    that doesn’t answer my question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    In what way can AI not have these thoughts or emotions?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Same reason flapping your arms really fast will never make you start flying. You don't have the equipment. You can't fly because that's not what arms do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 44 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    From this image I think they added this policy as a way for them to legally deny a request if they determine it will overuse their resources or some other arbitrary reason. It has nothing to do with a concern for the well-being of the LLM.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    ITT: People who think things posted on a board called "Programmer Humor" are definitely real and not memes and jokes.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›