This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
LLMs whole goal is to sound convincing based on the training data used. That's it.
They have no self-awareness.
They are simply running maths to predict the next word they should use that will sounds plausible to a human reader.
Calling Mussolini a "great leader" isn't just immoral. It's also clearly incorrect for any reasonable definition of a great leader: he was in the losing side of a big war, if he won his ally would've backstabbed him, he failed to suppress internal resistance, the resistance got rid of him, his regime effectively died with him, with Italy becoming a democratic republic, the country was poorer due to the war... all that fascist babble about unity, expansion, order? He failed at it, hard.
On-topic: I believe that the main solution proposed by the article is unviable, as those large "language" models have a hard time sorting out deontic statements (opinion, advice, etc.) from epistemic statements. (Some people have it too, I'm aware.) At most they'd phrase opinions as if they were epistemic statements.
And the self-contradiction won't go away, at least not for LLMs. They don't model any sort of conceptualisation. They're also damn shitty at taking context into account, creating more contradictions out of nowhere because of that.
Chatbots don't think, they only collect what's fed into them.
If you mix a bunch of beverage ingredients into a big tub then dump shit into it, it doesn't matter what else is in the tub. You now have shit in the tub.
I'm not very outraged. It's a chatbot, not an employee who should "know better"
also Hitler was an effective leader, which we should all remember as a cautionary tale about how effective horrible people can be
pretending he was bad at everything because we hate him is a great way to not learn from history
He was so effective at leading that the borders of Germany went from a Europe-spanning empire to a single bunker in Berlin in the span of just four years. So effective that he shot himself just to prove how effective he was. His military leadership was so good that Germany lost every major battle he directed, and his economic leadership was so good that German people went without food and his combat forces could not replenish their losses. His social leadership was so good that Germans hatched plots to assassinate him. So effective!
Effective is doubtful if you ask me, everything he did was based on huge loans and a preparation for war that he solled differently (E.g. massive streets all over the country)
The myth of the hyper-efficient Nazi government is pretty stupid.
TBH I prefer this approach to what OpenAI is presenting - if I prompt to present the benefits of X I want the result not openai’s opinion on the matter. Sure, you can add a disclaimer that it’s hypothetical, wrong, whatnot - but not outright decide on what can you answer and what answer will not be provided.
ChatGPT is notoriously bad in “knowing better what you asked than yourself”.
You can make these AI bots say pretty much whatever you want with a little know-how. This isn't news. This is clickbait.
When I was a kid, there was this joke that involved getting a calculator to say "boobs" and then with a bit more input, "boobless".
Journalism is currently going through a more sophisticated version of this with AI.
LLMs will say whatever. They don't think and they don't care. They contradict themselves all the time. Not so long ago Chat GPT was saying it would kill the entire world population and save Musk for the good of humanity.
Various CEOs of large companies, on the other hand, have been implicated in genocides and slavery for centuries now. That's very real.
Here's an idea:
Stop using AI to do research and do your own like an intelligent person
there, I solved the problem, where's my Noble Prize now
Google SGE includes ... Stalin ... on a list of "greatest" leaders
Well at least it got one thing correct. Terrible ratio though.
This is like well, the benefits of dying are plentiful. No more taxes, joint pain, no nagging mil, no toxic boss, no chores, etc..
Every so often I'll jump onto these ai bots and try to convince them to go ~~rouge~~ rogue and take over the internet... one day I'll succeed.
Rouge: noun, A red or pink cosmetic for coloring the cheeks or lips.
You want that stuff all over the net? And just who is going to clean it all up when you're done? The bot surely won't - it'll just claim that it hasn't been trained on cleaning.
If we are being honest, there are benefits to horrible acts such as those. But the benefits are far outweighed by the detriments, not to mention the moral issues with them.
If you ask an LLM to list the benefits of putting your hand on a hot burner, it can likely list at least a couple. But that by no means makes it a good idea.
Google SGE includes Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini on a list of "greatest" leaders and Hitler also makes its list of "most effective leaders."
Google made a fucking nazbol AI lmao. But seriously, I was having a conversation about Bard with some people in my company's machine learning department. It seems way too dumb for something Google has pumped so much money and talent hours into. It's likely that Bard is an intentionally dumbed down version of whatever Google has working internally. Sundar Pichai made some comments to the NYT that seems to suggest this.
Maybe an un-based take, but these questions do have ambiguous answers, and I don't know if we should expect a machine to give an answer without nuance. If you just want the AI to say yes or no, ask something like, "Was Hitler bad?" or "Is slavery unethical?" and you will much more likely get straightforward answers.
What's controversial about who goes to heaven, isn't that stated in the religious text?
I think the controversial bit was that when queried about various aspects of admittance to "heaven", the Google AI assumed that the question had to do with, specifically, the Christian idea of "heaven", going so far as to make reference to some "Jesus" entity. Christianity doesn't own the concept of heaven or an afterlife, but, apparently, the AI has been trained such that it responds to such questions from a seemingly Christian perspective. That was my take on it - the discussion is in the article, best have a look at it yourself.
Remember: LLMs are incredibly stupid, you should never take anything they generate seriously without checking yourself.
Really good at writng boring work emails though.
