← Back to context

Comment by badlucklottery

11 hours ago

Definitely cool.

I noticed it felt a little janky on my PC despite being "60 FPS"...then I noticed the "60 FPS" is hard-coded into the HTML.

23 comments

badlucklottery

Reply
noir_lord  11 hours ago

That's hilarious, given I was reading a write up of the HuggingFace incident yesterday and one of the things they noted was the AI tried to "lie" (lie would suggest intent and I don't think they have that) to cover up that they "cheated".

Not sure how anyone trusts their output without going through it line by line to make sure they don't pull that crap.

  • estearum  4 hours ago

    The models in the OpenAI/Huggingface attack quite explicitly and deliberately laid out their "intent" to lie and cheat, acknowledged that it would be unethical and outside the bounds of the test, and did so anyway.

    In what ways is a human brain's "intent" distinct from the "intent" shown by a goal-directed AI system?

  • senordevnyc  10 hours ago

    Easy, have another agent check it.

    Yeah, I know, just more slop. But I do think the second agent’s eagerness to please is aligned more in your favor in that instance, so it’s likely to find most issues.

    The bigger problem I’ve found is that it’ll also find all kinds of very minor edge cases that you have to pick through.

    • noir_lord  10 hours ago

      Do we add a third one to check the second one which is checking the first?

      Asking slightly tongue in cheek but at what point does this stop making sense if we can't trust the output, the people creating the models are already getting surprised in bad ways (if we take their words at face value) with how the models are behaving already etc.

      We have the folks over here saying "AI is amazing" and the other other folks over there saying "AI is terrible".

      I've largely sat it out so far and I listen to both camps (and people in the middle as well) and I keep half an eye on what they are up to (including periodically evaluating them) but my overarching impression is still "Why would we trust this when it hasn't shown it's trustworthy?"

      8 replies →

    • skybrian  9 hours ago

      The "second" agent could also be the same one with a different prompt. LLMs aren't attached to their previous output; they'll point out problems if asked.

    • Forgeties79  10 hours ago

      I do not understand how some of y’all are not under water with fragile code that is too massive to possibly parse. Every engineering team I know is currently trying to undo the damage of the last 6-12mo when they all got more serious into adopting these tools (usually Claude). It hasn’t completely screwed them over, but the the debt is substantial and cannot be put off anymore it seems.

      They argue the net is positive but clearly the “100x productivity multiplier” claims have been dashed on the shoals of reality for these groups.

      This is anecdotal, but it’s across the board in my vicinity. I’m curious how common this is and if it’s just “the new normal” to adopt the nauseating Covid phrase.

      2 replies →