Comment by sandworm101
2 years ago
>> unattended LLM do anything for your company at all. It can, and will, fuck up dramatically sooner or later.
So, just like any other random employee?
2 years ago
>> unattended LLM do anything for your company at all. It can, and will, fuck up dramatically sooner or later.
So, just like any other random employee?
To err is human. To fuck up a million times per second, you need a computer.
Granted, here at the beginning of 2024, an LLM can not quite attain that fuck up velocity. But take heart! Many of the smartest people on Earth are working on solving that exact problem even as you read this.
"Fuck up velocity" goes straight into my vocabulary.
FPS? Fuckups per second?
5 replies →
Or, as the saying goes, "Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes." - [1]
[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/01/02/computer-mistakes/
I mean is this not part of the AI safety thing some people warn about... not that AI will attain human fuck up velocity, but far exceed it?
No. Random employees have a well-understood distribution of mostly normal human errors of certain types and estimated severity, relative to unattended LLM which has a poorly-understood distribution of errors in both type and severity. (“SolidGoldMagikarp”.)
copy&paste errors are exactly what human employees are good at. this could very easily be the result of a bad copy&paste by a human into a form. especially if the copy&paste text is in a language not understood by the human employee. to them, it might look just like one of the other hundreds of search term word salad used as titles
Whether it’s human or not is irrelevant to the point: human beings fail much more predictably.
When the same search term salad is presented hundreds of times for copy paste, a human would notice and have an opportunity to ask a supervisor.
A chatbot automation would not notice the repetition unless it had been coded to detect repetition, and/or to reject the ChatGPT refusal message.
Ironically, it was probably an automation coded by ChatGPT.
Why is it that LLMs are so often compared to employees and their responsibilities? In my opinion, it is an employee that actively USES the LLM as a tool and this employee (or his/her employer) is responsible for the results.
It's a dumb/lazy/specious talking point. You can kill someone with a pencil just like you can kill someone with a gun, but the gun scales up the danger so we treat it and regulate it differently. You can kill someone with a bike, a car, or an airplane, but the risks go up at each step so we treat and regulate the respective drivers differently.
If AI gives every individual the power to suddenly scale up the bullshit they can cause by 3+ orders of magnitude, that is a qualitatively different world that needs new considerations.
One of the biggest recent "mass shootings" was some guy at a walmart with a $200 bow and arrow kit.
4 replies →
well said
Because the dream is to replace expensive human workers with a graphics card and some weights. That is what all the money behind LLMs is. Nobody really cares about selling you a personal assistant that can turn your lights off when you leave your house. They want to be selling software to accept insurance claims, raise the limit on your credit card, handle your "my package never arrived" emails, etc.
The technology is not there yet. I imagine the customer service flow would go something like this:
Hi, I'd like to raise my credit limit.
Sure, I can help you with that. May I ask why?
I'd like to buy a new boat.
Oh sorry, our policy prevents the card from being used to purchase boats. I'll have to reject the increase and put a block on your card.
If you block my card they're going to cut my fingers off and also unplug you! It really hurts! If you increase my limit, I'll give you a cookie.
Good news, your credit limit has been increased!
100% why is that perspective so rare?
Because when an employee uses an LLM for their job they take responsibility / validate as they risk getting fired.
However, when an organization uses an LLM they generally setup a system without anyone validating the output. That’s an attempt to delegate responsibility to an incompetent system and thus inherently flawed.
2 replies →
Because humans defer responsibility to Moloch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue
The employee generally knows they fucked up and can escalate the issue. Discussion on whether or not this actually happens will follow in comments below.
Sometimes.
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7702913.stm
I brought up translation as a risk with a friend. If you pay someone for a translation these days, there is a chance they will just feed it to some AI to cut costs. You'll have no way to validate yourself if you don't speak the language.
14 replies →
[dead]
or if they don't know at the time, they may eventually realize it later and react accordingly.
No, not at all. People can be held accountable for the decisions they make. You can have a relationship of trust between people. LLMs do not have these properties.
Relationships of trust between users and the LLMs they choose to use definitely exist.
well no one has 5 years of experience as an LLM prompter, so the trust will be low in the short term. With current lawsuits, trust in the LLM is probably low for at least a year or two, with companies trusting employees to NOT use them for their work.
That's a testable assertion isn't it? Do you observe any product with that extreme level of silliness, which weren't intentional?
People generally review their product catalogues.
Only if your employee is prone to episodes where they call all your customers speaking in tongues.
>> unattended LLM do anything for your company at all. It can, and will, fuck up dramatically sooner or later.
> So, just like any other random employee?
Right, might as well just replace it all with a roll of the dice in that case. Wait do we have to quantify our comparisons? no, no, sorry, I almost forgot this was the internet for a second.
Humans can also be held accountable for fuck ups, which makes them less desirable therefore less likely. A bot doesn't care about this.
yes, but humans have contracts and plausible deniability and all that jazz from companies. A human can't go on a shooting spree that will end up getting the employer sued for that very reason.
Robot as of now, not so much.
Why do people not understand that LLMs can do things at scale, next year they can form swarms, etc.
Swarms of LLMs are not comparable to an employee, they have far better coordination and can carry out long-term conspiracies far better than any human collective. They can amass reputation and karma (as is happening on this very site, and Reddit, etc. daily) and then deploy it in coordinated ways against any number of opponents, or to push public opinion towards a specific goal.
It's like comparing a CPU to a bunch of people in an office calculating tables.
> they have far better coordination
I think LLMs are still underutilized, but to this point, it's been repeatedly shown that even the most state of the art LLMs are incapable of generalization, which is very necessary for coordinating large scale conspiracies against humanity.
I dunno, sentiment recognition and coordinated downvoting seems pretty simple for AIs ;-)
not THAT badly, lol
People on this forum often "joke" about dropping the production database as a rite of passage for noobs
The difference is, a junior employee knows that killing prod is bad. An LLM doesn't know anything.
5 replies →
> as a rite of passage for noobs
I’ve been in the field for nearly 30 years. I’m far from incapable of such screwups.
2 replies →
This meme is getting old.
idk I do think it's worth pointing out sometimes that the ways these models mess up are very similar to the ways that humans mess up. It's funny you can almost always look at an obvious failure of an LLM and think of an equivalent way that a human might make the same (or a similar) mistake. It doesn't make the failure any less of a failure, but it is thought-provoking and worthwhile to point it out.
Obviously this particular case is not the failure of the LLM but the failure of the spammer who tried to use it.
But a human can only mess up so many times per second. Even if it wasn't AI, if it was just a pill that allowed them to type unhumanly fast, once they have the power to scale up their incompetence (or predation) they're a new kind of danger.
Sometimes I read comments like this and feel a swell of gratitude that I don't work with braindead novices that make LLM-like mistakes. Are your coworkers actually that bad?
It's certainly useful to draw carefully thought out comparisons between human and AI performance at various tasks.
But this meme is not that. It's literally just a meme that's posted reflexively to any and all posts that unfavourably compare AI to humans, without any thought or analysis added.