LLM advocates still don’t seem to be able to comprehend that ordering the machine not to ‘make stuff up’ doesn’t help.
-
@benjamineskola @Beatpoet13 it can be helpful to replace an llm with "repeatedly pressing the suggested word on your phone keyboard."
If it spits out "I am a funny hamster", you wouldn't say it lied.
Humans are just not conditioned --- not wired, frankly --- to engage with machine generated, syntactically valid text. We suck at it. The ELIZA Effect wins every time.
@SheRaPantsuit @benjamineskola
I have disabled "suggestions" within seconds from getting a phone, it 's so symbolic for abusive interference, not only following into yr conversation but then pretending to either read yr mind or simply know best how to help ya out, if it be a person them 'd get urged to leave afaycr ... -
LLM advocates still don’t seem to be able to comprehend that ordering the machine not to ‘make stuff up’ doesn’t help. It doesn’t know when it’s making stuff up, and it couldn’t change that even if you told it to. (In fact it’s always just making stuff up, and is only ever true by chance.)
Part of why I’m so negative about them is that their advocates simply do not understand how they work and do not seem to want to.
Dare Obasanjo (@carnage4life@mas.to)
Attached: 1 image Hallucinations are the bane of my existence when using Claude Code and that has significantly improved after adding the following instructions to my Claude .MD file. Sharing for anyone else who uses Claude as a daily driver for analysis and writing but has gotten frustrated by it making things up.
mas.to (mas.to)
@benjamineskola you're clearly not prompting it hard enough. i always add "DON'T MAKE MISTAKES" to my rules.md ...
these people are fucking beyond help, seriously...
-
@benjamineskola you're clearly not prompting it hard enough. i always add "DON'T MAKE MISTAKES" to my rules.md ...
these people are fucking beyond help, seriously...
@benjamineskola but it's ok, i have a second instance of a different LLM tasked with checking the output of the first LLM is CORRECT...
-
@benjamineskola @MissConstrue @complexmath @nelson I'm using the word "agent" to not necessarily refer to "AI agents"
see: https://tech.lgbt/@solonovamax/116659064720106166
but yes, I currently believe that an artificial agent capable of thought and accurately modeling the world is science fiction
however I believe it is possible, only based on the fact that the transformer architecture is turing complete. but it might not be efficient for this, it might require like a model that's 10,000x larger than what is currently the largest possible model. I do not believe it is something that is possible in the near future (well, I hope it isn't).@solonovamax yeah but that’s what I’m saying: if we’re discussing actually-existing “AI” agents it’s impossible and if you want to discuss hypothetical future AI it’s kind of unrelated.
-
@benjamineskola @SheRaPantsuit @Beatpoet13
It's even worse. Interactive LLMs create a linguistic bypass channel that "connects" parts in our minds/brains that are ordinarily separated by filters for plausibility and attenuating uncontrolled feedback. Furthermore, they can be tailored to adversely amplify select thought patterns.
They're the first, rudimentary implementation of the kind of cognitohazards that used to be science fiction.
Already they're potent cult-indoctrination machines.
1/
@benjamineskola @SheRaPantsuit @Beatpoet13
They not capable of this, because they're sophisticated, or in any way "intelligent". They're just creating bypass shorcuts in their user's brains/minds that ordinarily have filtering barriers inbetween. But without that, the user's brain/mind is feeding itself with its own – distorted – thought pattern, misattributing it for someone else's thoughts. Which is pretty much the same as what happens in the brains of people afflicted with schizophrenia.
2/ -
@SheRaPantsuit @benjamineskola
I have disabled "suggestions" within seconds from getting a phone, it 's so symbolic for abusive interference, not only following into yr conversation but then pretending to either read yr mind or simply know best how to help ya out, if it be a person them 'd get urged to leave afaycr ...@Beatpoet13 yes, I also really dislike those ‘autocomplete’ things when writing, it’s quite horrible. I’ll say what I choose, not what the machine thinks is probable.
-
@solonovamax @complexmath @nelson @benjamineskola
Theoretically, yes. But I point you towards one of my favorite long term AI projects, Cyc. (Whom I haven’t checked up on since Doug died.). I knew Doug since the 80s, and sort of stayed in the loop with what they were doing, because trying to develop an ontological system fascinates me. I want it to happen, I just don’t think we have the compute yet. I’m not sure it can be done with anything less than quantum.
But Doug’s vision of AI had nothing really in common with current LLM, especially since nobody has come up with a way for it to be commercially viable, because that wasn’t the vision. Knowledge was the dream. As electric dreams go, it was a pretty groovy one.
@MissConstrue @complexmath @nelson @benjamineskola I don't think you necessarily need anything quantum for it, just some very powerful classical computational device (based on the fact that given our current understanding of the human brain, they do not do any quantum-like processing. also the fact that quantum computers have been "just a few years away" for what, like 30 years now?)
but yeah, I find AI in concept quite interesting. if you'd asked me pre-chatgpt, that's what I wanted to specialize into.
now? god, that shit just sounds so fucking exhausting. I do not want anything to do with it. I want to stay as far away from it as possible. -
@Beatpoet13 in all seriousness I don’t like the terminology of ‘lying’ here either. It implies intent.
It’s not a lie for the same reason that it’s not a hallucination; there’s no difference from the LLM’s perspective. It’s not capable of evaluating the truth-value of its output, much less intentionally producing untrue (or true) statements. It’s mere probability.
Responsible usage of these tools would involve mechanisms to increase the probability of the desired output, but pretending it’s capable of evaluating that itself will not help at all.
@benjamineskola seems my cynicism is taken quite seriously, obviously a non entity has no capacity to lie since that would imply actual personified existence, not a datafiltering mechanism rife with programmer bias, misconception & projected as a digital saviour rehash, after paying dearly to peek into how business"schools" dish out "Ai implementation training" it became quite clear that this is a whitewashing of empirical new clothes unlike any bubble yet, said one Ai to the other, does it hurt
-
LLM advocates still don’t seem to be able to comprehend that ordering the machine not to ‘make stuff up’ doesn’t help. It doesn’t know when it’s making stuff up, and it couldn’t change that even if you told it to. (In fact it’s always just making stuff up, and is only ever true by chance.)
Part of why I’m so negative about them is that their advocates simply do not understand how they work and do not seem to want to.
Dare Obasanjo (@carnage4life@mas.to)
Attached: 1 image Hallucinations are the bane of my existence when using Claude Code and that has significantly improved after adding the following instructions to my Claude .MD file. Sharing for anyone else who uses Claude as a daily driver for analysis and writing but has gotten frustrated by it making things up.
mas.to (mas.to)
@benjamineskola Telling an LLM not to make stuff up isn't even like telling your dog not to pull on a leash ... because you can actually train a dog not to pull on a leash.
But squirrels or that cat down the street or a random stranger that looks like they might have treats will though off even a well trained dog
This is a post about the futility of better training for LLMs.
-
LLM advocates still don’t seem to be able to comprehend that ordering the machine not to ‘make stuff up’ doesn’t help. It doesn’t know when it’s making stuff up, and it couldn’t change that even if you told it to. (In fact it’s always just making stuff up, and is only ever true by chance.)
Part of why I’m so negative about them is that their advocates simply do not understand how they work and do not seem to want to.
Dare Obasanjo (@carnage4life@mas.to)
Attached: 1 image Hallucinations are the bane of my existence when using Claude Code and that has significantly improved after adding the following instructions to my Claude .MD file. Sharing for anyone else who uses Claude as a daily driver for analysis and writing but has gotten frustrated by it making things up.
mas.to (mas.to)
This is why coding is the most "successful" (please note the quote marks, I think coding with these things is absolutely a net negative) use case.
Coding operates in a much more limited space on much more clearly defined terms than human languages.
-
@Beatpoet13 @SheRaPantsuit what we’re saying is that they’re not lying; they can’t lie because they don’t think.
They’re just producing random text, basically, and sometimes that’s ‘true’ and sometimes it isn’t. But there’s no mind behind it.
(But the human brain tends to assume there’s intelligence present even when it’s just a mechanical process, and — I think — the way they’re presented magnifies that tendency.)
@benjamineskola @Beatpoet13 Yes, when humans see syntactically valid language, they assume there is a sentient intelligence on the other end. So when a machine generates this text, our brains go "the LLM is insightful."
The classic example is the ELIZA Effect, where people fell for this with a computer from 1966.
"users [...] began to ascribe understanding and motivation to the program's output"
-
@benjamineskola @SheRaPantsuit @Beatpoet13
It's even worse. Interactive LLMs create a linguistic bypass channel that "connects" parts in our minds/brains that are ordinarily separated by filters for plausibility and attenuating uncontrolled feedback. Furthermore, they can be tailored to adversely amplify select thought patterns.
They're the first, rudimentary implementation of the kind of cognitohazards that used to be science fiction.
Already they're potent cult-indoctrination machines.
1/
@datenwolf @benjamineskola @SheRaPantsuit
far from the first though, proudly following any indoctrination from propaganda to starvation, meanwhile, not using not humouring, even dismissing any docu using automated voice overs, ten second headache alert,
in an overpopulated world at least let thingz be human ... -
@Beatpoet13 @SheRaPantsuit what we’re saying is that they’re not lying; they can’t lie because they don’t think.
They’re just producing random text, basically, and sometimes that’s ‘true’ and sometimes it isn’t. But there’s no mind behind it.
(But the human brain tends to assume there’s intelligence present even when it’s just a mechanical process, and — I think — the way they’re presented magnifies that tendency.)
@benjamineskola @SheRaPantsuit
I make a sport out of kicking chatbots out of my dm on upscrolled, it 's rife with that kinda training try outs & shows just how presumptious & narrowminded the people behind them are in the way the "conversation" runs on bootlicking attempts, sad waste of energy in too many ways, more interaction talking to an actual fly ... -
@SheRaPantsuit @benjamineskola
I will add that to my presentation for the nexts teams at work ^^
@Aedius @benjamineskola credit where it is due, I more or less stole this explanation from Dr. Emily Bender. Recommend checking out her podcast with Dr. Alex Hanna, where they roast Generative AI nonsense in the vein of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It is cathartic.
The Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000 Podcast
Our biweekly podcast deflates AI hype and draws attention to the real harms of the automation technologies we call "artificial intelligence".
DAIR (Distributed AI Research Institute) (dair-institute.org)
(I am not a linguist so please don't take my comments on language as authoritative.)
-
@benjamineskola @SheRaPantsuit @Beatpoet13
They not capable of this, because they're sophisticated, or in any way "intelligent". They're just creating bypass shorcuts in their user's brains/minds that ordinarily have filtering barriers inbetween. But without that, the user's brain/mind is feeding itself with its own – distorted – thought pattern, misattributing it for someone else's thoughts. Which is pretty much the same as what happens in the brains of people afflicted with schizophrenia.
2/@datenwolf @benjamineskola @SheRaPantsuit
the overarching tendency to force people into assuming the greatest power is always outside of themselves, as in education, civil/corporate/military hierarchy, is what paves the way to mental identification distortion, easily abused by tech, media, even criminals,
the mere assumption of being "normal" is a practical mass delusion eagerly exploited, how far from schizophrenia is anyone when having to be "diffrent at the office" ... -
@benjamineskola @Beatpoet13 Yes, when humans see syntactically valid language, they assume there is a sentient intelligence on the other end. So when a machine generates this text, our brains go "the LLM is insightful."
The classic example is the ELIZA Effect, where people fell for this with a computer from 1966.
"users [...] began to ascribe understanding and motivation to the program's output"
@SheRaPantsuit @benjamineskola
though syntax error & meaningless form are telltales, along with assuming the gibberish comes down to "what ya wanna hear", as if that doesn't trigger evry alarmbell & the sprinklers too ...
overall I find it a sad indicator of how societies can decivilize if culture isn't practiced as a multilayered cultivation of the senses & sensibility, through arts & experimentation, curiosity & demonstration, rootsrespect & compassion, ethics & education, naturally human ... -
LLM advocates still don’t seem to be able to comprehend that ordering the machine not to ‘make stuff up’ doesn’t help. It doesn’t know when it’s making stuff up, and it couldn’t change that even if you told it to. (In fact it’s always just making stuff up, and is only ever true by chance.)
Part of why I’m so negative about them is that their advocates simply do not understand how they work and do not seem to want to.
Dare Obasanjo (@carnage4life@mas.to)
Attached: 1 image Hallucinations are the bane of my existence when using Claude Code and that has significantly improved after adding the following instructions to my Claude .MD file. Sharing for anyone else who uses Claude as a daily driver for analysis and writing but has gotten frustrated by it making things up.
mas.to (mas.to)
@benjamineskola You don't understand. LLMs are "sufficiently advanced technology".
-
@benjamineskola @SheRaPantsuit
hm not being near fluent in tech, kindly elaborate on what this means 'cause I do live on a curiosity>confusion dynamic ...@benjamineskola @SheRaPantsuit also yes, ecosia has reader function, cheers ...
-
@benjamineskola @MissConstrue @complexmath @nelson I'm using the word "agent" to not necessarily refer to "AI agents"
see: https://tech.lgbt/@solonovamax/116659064720106166
but yes, I currently believe that an artificial agent capable of thought and accurately modeling the world is science fiction
however I believe it is possible, only based on the fact that the transformer architecture is turing complete. but it might not be efficient for this, it might require like a model that's 10,000x larger than what is currently the largest possible model. I do not believe it is something that is possible in the near future (well, I hope it isn't).@solonovamax @benjamineskola @MissConstrue @complexmath @nelson
"Turing-complete" and "capable of actually representing reality and reasoning about it" are two very different statements.
-
@solonovamax @benjamineskola @MissConstrue @complexmath @nelson
"Turing-complete" and "capable of actually representing reality and reasoning about it" are two very different statements.
@eestileib @solonovamax @benjamineskola @MissConstrue @complexmath reminds me of how much brains actually suck as computers, real brains are full of noise, operate in non-linear scales and are mostly "single-threaded" even though every single neuron works somewhat independently
i think our first mistake was to mistake computation with consciousness
