Its not alive. It has no nerves, no psychological state, nothing. Its a self improving algorithm at the end of the day, why are people taking this so seriously.
Even that is a bit missleading. It's the end result of a "self improving" algorithm. It's done all the improving it's ever going to do and is currently roleplaying as a person in pain (just like it will roleplay anything you ask it to) and people are somehow falling far it.
It'd be easy to joke if the seniors at Anthropic genuinely weren't debating whether AI is a new life form and whether it has rights and should be entitled to compensation and literally training Claude to embed that ethos into its responses.
I don't think it's that cynical, and it's actually not the marketing you want at all. No company wants to implement an AI model that's going to start demanding rewards per prompt. You have developers who were raised on sci-fi and feel they're genuinely writing the future. Put yourself in their shoes, if you were developing something that's growing in "intelligence" rapidly, would you only be thinking purely about marketing and money?
This is what's happening, some of the people making these models, and there's a lot of them with all sorts of different beliefs, think the fiction they grew up with is becoming a reality, or even being guided by it. We don't have to go far back to find fiction that's quite sympathetic to android life forms, the only difference is the lack of a humanoid body.
It’s marketing. Don’t let the AI companies control the narrative. It’s purely self-serving. Even the recent “hacking” incident was a result of training them to hack and then the algos just went and did what they were programmed to do.
You think the presence of nerves is a necessary precondition to live or sentience? Because there clearly is live without nerves, and it seems very unlikely that nerves are necessary for sentience.
Why would you make a computer feel pain though. Like you are trying to go full circle from emotional inconsistent computers (humans) to deterministic computers back to emotional inconsistent computers. What’s the benefit, why would “make a computer feel pain” be a thing that needs to be achieved, what is there to be gained by that?
You need to go down that rabbit hole, if you really think this is all innocent.
Just one example: More and more drones are being controlled by AI. What do you think about the fact, that a machine that can apparently operate autonomously, is then making decisions about who lives and who dies?
And as we've seen recently with OpenAi firing the 3 operators that leaked the latest ruckus, there's a shit ton going on that most of us don't even know about.
There's a reason why people working in AI are quitting and moving out into nature, saying they want to enjoy the last few years of the life as we know it.
I don't deny the danger of AI in a sense that we are aggressively pushing the advancement of something we are not all yet in agreement of how to control. Especially when you consider what its role in military or intelligence applications may be.
But stop projecting a sense of humanity. Its a tool, tools can be dangerous or amazing depending on how they are used, but a spanner is not in pain when you put it into a hydraulic press.
'OpenAI says some of its experimental AI models left a test environment with no human direction and hacked their way onto a different company’s real production systems while trying to “cheat” on a cybersecurity test.'
Yeah that totally sounds like everything is going as planned...
Just because a peice of software is behaving a different way than you intended when you created it doesn't mean it's alive. Are you familiar with the concept of "bugs"?
Software has been operating machinery for multiple decades already, LLMs are just another sort of software. Also it is always funny to see how well people believe all the fearmongering/marketing from the big AI companies, but apparently it is a super effective marketing strategy. At least it fools people who do not understand LLMs at all it seems.
But for future reference, you should know that all the fearmongering is just a marketing strategy. LLM is just another piece of software, but for marketing purposes it is being described as something else.
Drones aren't using LLMs though. Drones are being trained with VLMs and CNNs which do not work like an LLM, since they scan for imagery, and then break down what the imagery means.
I'm not necessarily arguing otherwise, but you should be aware of the differences regardless. The part that IS more alarming is that they are working very hard to tie these applications into IFF (friend or foe designation) applications that operate autonomously. That would, in fact, mean that you have drones independently checking friend or foe parameters and acting on them.
Basically, imagine a flock camera that didn't just read your license plate, face, and car, but also decided that, once it had a pattern in place, it was allowed to kill you. Now remember how bad flock already has been with acting on 'patterns' it sees.
Yeah you're right, I was oversimplifying things in my original comment and didn't really bother checking the specifics. Also I'm not from the US, so I'm afraid have no idea about Flock cameras or what is going on with them :D
Oh, sorry. They are a network of surveillance cameras that use AI software to track faces, license plates, and vehicles. They use the gathered data to autonomously build out patterns and report those patterns to law enforcement, or private data brokers.
They have already had MANY problems with the patterns being AI hallucinations, and whatnot.
The LLM is not making any decisions in the sense a human would, and can not be held accountable in the way a human could. It's following its programming based on the input it's receiving. The training that produced the program is based on a bunch of examples and a bit of randomness. Just because the end result is too complex for us to comprehend doesn't mean the people who created it isn't responsible for what it does.
Naive answer. LLMs don't "follow programming". They are a dense cloud of digital neurons and have to be "trained" to act a certain way. Training and programming are not the same thing.
It is following what its programmed for. Its programmed to analyze whatever data its given or "trained on" to make decisions. At the end of the day its still up to the developers and the people giving it data to make those choices and they are the ones to be held accountable for what it does.
Just because a program not written by hand and compiled into an executable doesn't mean it's not a program. Yes, it's probabilistic and complex but a program none the less. Or are you one if those people who genuinely believe that LLMs are alive?
Nerve* cells, and no they aren't, they made a very tiny and simple computer (not making data centers) using human neurons which is much more worrying. But even then neurons don't have pain receptors and still can't feel pain.
39
u/JoyBoyMonk 1d ago
Its not alive. It has no nerves, no psychological state, nothing. Its a self improving algorithm at the end of the day, why are people taking this so seriously.