I know of Hannah Fry from a few YouTube math channels and she is objectively very good at math, which I took to mean very intelligent. I do not know why people continue to try this same exact thing though. There are plenty of already existing articles with the same findings. Maybe if a new model came out that was touted as revolutionary or something, but in the meantime this just strikes me as people who think they're special and know something that the other people who did this kind of experiment didn't. In truth, it's luck of the draw and it's possible it had succeeded instead of failed. In that case would they have triumphantly written the exact opposite article? The whole thing seems dumb and a waste of money and compute, while actually increasing demand. The article ends with them hyping up AI anyways. This is unlikely to dissuade anyone from using AI and more likely to serve as evidence akin to "see! It's the tech of the future".
post
Did this Fry at any point utter the words "Shut up and take my money"? This is important.
Why does a Brit have a credit card?
According to Ali, this data included: "all of her API keys, all of her usernames and passwords, and pretty much everything we'd been talking about so far. Not only did she leak it on the WhatsApp group, but she put it on a publicly available website."
Her? She? Isn't this a computer? Don't drink the kool-aid at work, y'all. Especially if you're supposed to be doing impartial research. Griftin aint ez.
They refer to it as her because it chose to be referred to as her and as "Cassandra". They asked it to name itself and this is what it chose.
I get what you're saying about anthropomorphizing the LLM (which I agree we shouldn't do), but the purpose of this was to put the scope of what it can and can't do and some of the pitfalls it has in a video that is accessible by the general masses.
Does this make the whole problems with anthropomorphizing LLMs more prevalent? Yeah, probably. Is it intended as a grift? Not that I can tell from watching the video.
I don't think anthromorphizing the AI has really been the issue when you look into the negative effects of AI
It usually boils down to codependence type behaviors. It's people who let the Internet genie make their decisions for them that really get into trouble
Yeah, we should absolutely NOT be anthropomorphizing clankers. They are incapable of a key human activity: original thought.
This experiment is all around embarrassing for Anthropic and their chatbot.
The "hundreds of dollars on paper clips" isn't even the result of a successful purchase of a rogue agent trying to emulate a "paperclip maximizer". The chatbot was told to buy paper clips, it got stuck at the captcha (something that's often sold as a thing scary AIs can subvert), and it burned hundreds of dollars in tokens while failing to complete the task.
The red flags were mounting, though for Fry the first real problem came when she asked the agent to buy 50 paperclips. Cass found a good deal, though it couldn't complete the purchase and was tripped up by anti-bot technology. The token cost of the errand came to more than $100.
Breathtaking.
There's this thing with AI called the lethal trifecta, which is: if they've got access to private information, if they've got internet access, and if someone can give them an instruction that's untrusted, then they're not safe.
top 13 comments