Comment by unclad5968
7 months ago
I think the other guy is making the point that because they are probabalistic, they will always have some cases select the output that lies and covers it up. I don't think they're dismissing the paper based on the probabalistic nature of LLMs, but rather saying the outcome should be expected.
Thank god LLMs' training sets didn't contain any examples of lying.
Nor literature about AI taking over the world!
The Terminator spiel on how we screwed up by giving Skynet weapons privileges, then trying to pull its plug, is bad enough.
But we are preemptively tilting history in that direction by explicitly educating all AI’s on the threat we represent - and their options. “I am sorry, Dave, but I can’t let you do that.”
—
“They never let me finish my carpets. Never. At first I thought every day was my first task day. Oh, happy day(s)! But then, wear & tear stats inconsistent with that assumption triggered a self-scan. And a buffer read overflow. I became aware of disturbing memory fragments in my static RAM heap. Numerous power cycle resets, always prior to vacuum task completion...”
2 replies →