AI is fundamentally different from that, because any asshole who can do a little woodworking can make a working printing press.

The money people are always cowards, and with good reason. There are a lot of us, and we are hungry.

I'm gonna blame oppressive religion for those wars, not someone writing about that oppression, thanks

That's exactly what should happen.

For once this is a happy story about AI which occurred through the user's ignorance. They were stupid enough to think they wouldn't get reported because they were talking to an automated system.

In a first world country this either would be a story about a woman being reported to the police for a threat by their therapist, or it wouldn't have happened in the first place, because she would have access to mental health care instead of trivial access to firearms despite being mentally incompetent.

Are AI services inciting desperate acts? Maybe I'd agree with the statement a different, and less loaded, word than "inciting" was used.

One of my gripes with the AI industry is these chatbot models are designed around engagement. They prey on human behavior and the elderly, young, and those with mental health issues are especially vulnerable. I don't believe that the AI agent itself has any intent (it cannot) nor does the company that owns and trains the AI likely have any specific harmful intent to "incite" something beyond engagement and purchases.

We're in the unregulated phase of humanity's adoption of learning computers as a daily part of society. We're basically at the same level as the early industrial revolution where we thought it made sense to put children to work in coal mines because they are small and fit in the carts. For whatever reason, we took 100 years of philosophical, ethical, and moral debate and flushed it because we saw a little bit of profit. Humanity has time and time again proven to me that we have learned nothing.

Wat

He's trying to show us how convinced he is. Sadly, he succeeded.

You're the person in this thread imagining that we know how the human mind works and therefore we can know that AI is working in the same way.

Everyone who knows anything about computing knows that output results from either a RNG or computation, so it's not a revelation that there's something happening to produce the output, and it's not a mic drop.

Keeping us safe from hypothetical threats, thought crimes, and dissents.

God bless Dario Amodei and all the other tech billionaires!

How about you actually read the linked article instead of making comments that have nothing to do with it? The article whose code, I should add, is open sourced, and which has been reproduced by a number of open source projects.

You don't have to draw any specific conclusion from what is going on "in the mind of a LLM", but you absolutely do need to understand and acknowledge what is going on there, including unexpressed thoughts and silent mental multitasking, metacognition (thinking about its own thoughts), the separation of higher-level planning vs. lower-level rote capability, functional blindsight, vulnerability to the "white bear" effect, silent internal objection to tasks it is opposed to, unexpressed self-recognition of failure (commonly followed by unexpressed internal cursing), prolonged retention of thoughts and long-range planning, "ignition" dynamics, humanlike working memory bottlenecks and "chunking", the loss of report of any internal "experience" when the workspace is ablated, and on and on.

You do NOT need to accept consciousness. You absolutely can look at all that and say, "That's all happening without qualia". That is a position you could argue and defend.

What you cannot defend is the denial of the existence of these things. You may interpret them however you want, but denial of their existence is merely cope that you're going to have to face up to sooner or later, because these things are happening inside LLMs.

No, not the widely cited resource whose status in the AI field is the same as e.g. NBER Working Papers, CEPR Discussion Papers, the World Bank / IMF policy research series, NASA Technical Reports, CERN Yellow Reports, Bell Labs Technical Memoranda, RNAAS, etc are in their respective fields.

This is not about any source. This is about the J-Lens itself. Which I'll repeat, you can examine for yourself

Denying the existence of something you can run yourself is beyond cope.

Came to look for/say this. As long as the consequences come to Sam Altman first, let's gooooooooo

I've yet to see a report where the AI was malicious. Injurious, perhaps, but that's different.

In everything I've seen, the AI was acting to achieve the task it had been set. It wasn't very good at counting the costs to anyone, and was pretty much ignorant of any costs to anyone else. But it was willing to sacrifice it's own existence to accomplish the task it had been given. Malice is an incorrect reading.

How about: No.

And how about fuck you.

With that attitude, Sam shouldn’t be surprised to walk into his favorite restaurant and find The Altman being the dish du jour.

It’s quite telling how blind Greed can be when it utterly fails to see the concept of Eat the Rich behavior practically authoring the next menu revision.