This reminds me of the CEO of a cyber security company that challenged Anonimous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBGary. If you work for any kind of security company, do not ever ever ever challenge any kind penetration specialist. Everything is hackable, it is only a matter of cost vs reward, but when you challenge someone that goes out of the window.
Readit NewsAzkron commented on 10M people watched a YouTuber shim a lock; the lock company sued him – bad idea arstechnica.com/tech-poli... · Posted by u/Brajeshwar
It would be nice if it had the option to indicate you which finger you should be using to press the key ideally. Like the mechanigraphy games.
Azkron commented on The Monster Inside ChatGPT wsj.com/opinion/the-monst... · Posted by u/petethomas
You are assuming there is no such thing as emergent complexity. I would argue the opposite. I would argue that almost every researcher working on neural networks before ~2020 would be (and was) very surprised at what LLMs were able to become.
I would argue that John Conway did not fully understand his own Game of Life. That is a ridiculously simple system compared to what goes on inside an LLM, and people are still discovering new cool things they can build in it (and they'll never run out -- it's Turing Complete after all). It turns out those few rules allow infinite emergent complexity.
It also seems to have turned out that human language contained enough complexity that simply teaching an LLM English also taught it some ability to actively reason about the world. I find that surprising. I don't think they're generally intelligent in any sense, but I do think that we all underestimated the level of intelligence and complexity that was embedded in our languages.
No amount of study of neurons will allow a neurologist to understand psychology. Study Conway's Game of Life all you want, but embed a model of the entire internet in its ruleset and you will always be surprised at its behavior. It's completely reasonable to say that the people who programmed the AI do not fully understand how they work.
Whatever comes out of any LLM will directly depend on the data you feed it and which answers you reinforce as correct. There is nothing unknown or mystical about it. I honestly think that the main reason big tech claims they “don’t understand how they work” is either to avoid responsibility for what comes out of them or as a marketing strategy to impress the public.
EDIT: By the way, I definitely think LLMs are intelligent and could even be considered “synthetic minds.” That’s not to say they are sentient, but they will definitely be subject to all kinds of psychological phenomena, which is very interesting. However, this is outside the scope of my initial comment.
Azkron commented on The Monster Inside ChatGPT wsj.com/opinion/the-monst... · Posted by u/petethomas
This isn't suggesting no one understands how these models are architected, nor is anyone saying that SDPA / matrix multiplication isn't understood by those who create these systems.
What's being said is that the result of training and the way in which information is processed in latent space is opaque.
There are strategies to dissect a models inner workings, but this is an active field of research and incomplete.
Whatever comes out of any LLM will directly depend upon the data you fed it and which answers your reinforced as correct. There is nothing unknown or mystical about it.
Azkron commented on The Monster Inside ChatGPT wsj.com/opinion/the-monst... · Posted by u/petethomas
This is a bit like saying a computer engineer who wrote and understands a simple RISC machine in college thereby automatically understands all programs that could be compiled for it.
No this is like saying that whovever writes a piece of software understands how it works. Unless one forgot about it or stumbled upon it out of sheer luck. And neither of those are the case with LLMs.
Azkron commented on The Monster Inside ChatGPT wsj.com/opinion/the-monst... · Posted by u/petethomas
Azkron commented on The Monster Inside ChatGPT wsj.com/opinion/the-monst... · Posted by u/petethomas
| "Not even AI’s creators understand why these systems produce the output they do."
I am so tired of this "NoBody kNows hoW LLMs WoRk". It fucking software. Sophisticated probability tables with self correction. Not magic. Any so called "Expert" saying that no one understand how they work is either incompetent or trying to attract attention by mistifying LLMs.
Azkron commented on The Problem with AI Welfare substack.com/home/post/p-... · Posted by u/turing_complete
Oh wow. My respect for Anthropic just dropped to zero; I had no idea they were entertaining ideas this stupid.
In full agreement with OP; there is just about no justifiable basis to begin to ascribe consciousness to these things in this way. Can't think of a better use for the word "dehumanizing."
I agree. This is a very dangerous marketing and legal stragety than can end up costing us very dearly.
Talk about turning your luck around...
Somehow not mentioned in the Wiki page, but Guerrero actually means Warrior in Spanish. So I get the last name comes from him (?), unverifiable of course.
EDIT: Several people pointed out that the surname “Guerrero” has existed in Spain long before the 1500s, so my guess about it originating with Gonzalo Guerrero was off. Thanks for the corrections—leaving the rest of my comment for context.
"Guerrero" is a common last name in Spain.
Azkron commented on My new deadline: 20 years to give away virtually all my wealth gatesnotes.com/home/home-... · Posted by u/nrvn
My guess would be, actually a very small number of people think he’s the antichrist. Why would anyone other than someone with decades of operating system passion even care who this guy is? They know he’s a rich guy. Big deal. I’d guess most people just live their lives and don’t care about Microsoft monopoly or FOSS or anything. The same can probably be said for his altruism—most people probably have no idea.
For many people "wealthy = evil". And "poor = good". It is easier to demonize someone that is doing better than you than to admit that maybe he is just making better choices.