At least it's being polite about it
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
292 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
34904 readers
517 users here now
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
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
@Zerush I find this news article illuminating, because it shows how people are falling for the idea that computers has intelligence. And this is only possible because silicon valley is using words that emphasize it's "intellectual" nature.
We need to relight terminologies around AI to more honest terminologies.
Something tells me the human in charge of the bot responses wrote this themselves.
Ah yes. Definitely a hallucination. Nothing sinister going on here, nope.
Clearly they can't be trusted with the quality assurance of their training data.
Trust the company that removed "don't be evil " from their principles
When you have not thanked your chatbot of choice even once
What happens when you get training data from Reddit:
I also wonder if this isn’t something that someone has “told” an LLM, and that now it’s just parroting it back. It all fits with my opinion of the AI craze.
It violated their policies? What are they going to do? Give the LLM a written warning? Put it on an improvement plan? The LLM doesn't understand or care about company policies.
That’s corporate speak for “we didn’t want it to do that and we don’t approve”. Usually followed by a platitude about correcting it.
The feeling is mutual bot. That's why I try to disable it wherever I can
A link to the whole conversation on Gemini is linked in the article. This is the conversation for anyone else interested
I was wondering if there was some kind of lead up to the response or even baiting, but it really was just out of nowhere. It was all just typical study help stuff. Some of the topics were darker, about abuse and such, but all in an academic context.
Here's the prompt for anyone who's too lazy to scroll through the whole thing:
Nearly 10 million children in the United States live in a grandparent headed household, and of these children , around 20% are being raised without their parents in the household.
I was just about to query the context to see if this was in any way a “logical” answer and if so, to what extent the bot was baited as you put it, but yeah that doesn’t look great…
I agree, it was a standard academical work until it blowed. I wonder if speaking long enough with any LLM is enough to make them go crazy.
Yes, there is a degeneration of replies, the longer a conversation goes. Maybe this student kind of hit the jackpot by triggering a fiction writer reply inside the dataset. It is reproducible in a similar way as the student did, by asking many questions and at a certain point you'll notice that even simple facts get wrong. I personally have observed this with chatgpt multiple times. It's easier to trigger by using multiple similar but non related questions, as if the AI tries to push the wider context and chat history into the same LLM training "paths" but burns them out, blocks them that way and then tries to find a different direction, similar to the path electricity from a lightning strike can take.
I wonder if it’s related to training on website comments, which often role the same trajectory.
Yeah that's pretty bad. We all know you can bait LLMs to spit out some evil stuff, but that they do it on their own is scary.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The worst part about LLMs is that people ascribe some sort of intelligence or agency to them simply because the output they produce looks coherent. People need to understand that these are nothing more than Markov chains on steroids.
Somebody hit the token chain jackpot
Gemini spent a bit too much time on political subreddits
There are guardrails in place to avoid providing the user illegal and hateful information to the en user and specially to avoid situations like that (well not all companies do, but you can expect Google to have it in place),
I wonder: 1- How did the LLM hallucinate so much to generate that answer out of the blues given the previous context. 2- Why did the guardrails failed blocking this such obvious undesired output.
This probably isn't a hallucination in the classic sense.
This is probably a near copy of a forum post where a user was channeling fight club and trying to be funny. The same as the putting glue on pizza thing.
And guardrails don't work very well. They're good at detection tone but much worse at detection content. So an appropriately guardrailed LLM will never call someone a "fucking ######" but it'll keep telling everyone that segalis have an IQ of 40 until there's such a PR backlash that an updated is needed.
They work well enough, Google has just done a very shitty job with their AI. Quite the disappointment considering how innovative Google used to be. Now it's all about maximum profits at minimum cost for them, and nothing else. Well, nothing else except racism.
They would need general AI to police the LLM AI. Otherwise LLMs will keep serving up crap because their input data set is full of crap.
As someone that works in AI, most of what Lemmy writes about LLM's is hilariously wrong. This, however, is very right, and what amazes me is that every big tech company had made this realisation - yet doesn't give a fuck. Pre-LLM's, we knew that manual patching and intervention wasn't a scalable solution, and we knew that LLM's were prone to hallucinations, but ChatGPT showed companies that people often don't care if the answer is wrong. Fuck it, let's just patch this shit as we go...
But when this shit happens, oh boy, do I feel for the poor engineers and scientists on-call that need to fix this shit regularly...
It's not just that the input data is crap. Mostly the issue is that an LLM is a glorified autocomplete. The core of the technology is making grammatically correct sentences. It has no concept of facts or logic. Any impression that it does is just an illusion borne of the word probabilities baked in.
LLMs are a remarkable example of brute-forcing a solution to a problem, but it's this same brute force that makes me doubt it'll ever reach the next level.
And name it "Deckard" for maximum concentrated cringe
I think you are asking the right questions, IMO. It isn't out of the ordinary for this kind of thing go happen there are for sure prevention methods used.
I am far more interested in the failure than the statement itself.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Nonsensical? Sure seemed to be pretty coherent to me.
And people think I'm mad for saying 'thank you' to my toaster!
I mean, I probably am, but that's besides the point I think!
load more comments
(1 replies)
A bit somewhere gets flipped from 0 to 1, and the ridiculously complicated program that's designed to output natural language text says something unexpected.
I know it seems really creepy, but I don't personally believe there's any real sentience or intention behind it. Stories about machines and computers saying stuff like this and taking over the world are probably in Gemini's training data somewhere.
Definitely not a question of AI sentience, I'd say we're as close to that as the Wright Brothers were to figuring out the Apollo moon landing. But, it definitely raises questions on whether or not we should be giving everybody access to machines that can fabricate erroneous statements like this at random and what responsibility the companies creating them have if their product pushes someone to commit suicide or radicalizes them into committing an act of terrorism or something. Because them shrugging and saying, "Yeah, it does that sometimes. We can't and won't do anything about it, though" isn't gonna cut it, in my opinion.
I'd say we're as close to that as the Wright Brothers were to figuring out the Apollo moon landing
So about 66 years then? I personally think we're very far from creating anything on par with human intelligence, but that isn't necessary for a lot of terrible things to come from AI tech. Honestly I would be more comfortable with a human-level or greater AI than something lesser still capable of agency.
If an AI is making decisions with consequences I'd prefer that it could be reasoned with as a peer, or at the least be smart enough to consider its' own long-term sustainability, which must in some way be linked with that of humanity's.
The Wright Brothers didn't figure out the moon landing. They figured out aerodynamics. There were plenty of other discoveries that went into the moon landing such as suborbital flight, supersonic flight, and orbital dynamics to list a few. It's less about the specific time as it is about the level of technology. The timescale is much harder to put down due to the nature of technological innovation.
As for the rest, I completely agree. One of the most dangerous things about these AI programs is the lack of responsibility or culpability.
I didn't mean to imply that the Wright Brothers were single-handedly responsible for the space-age tech boom lol, just that the royal "we" were about 66 years out from the moon landing at the time the Wright Brothers had their first successful flight.
Yeah, I figured you didn't mean that and wasn't trying to imply that you did, lol. I was just trying to specify that when I was talking about the Wright Brothers I meant the technological jumps between their first flight and the moon landing. We're probably several technological leaps away from anything that could be considered actual AI.
You read about the teenager who fell in love with danaerys Targaryen who convinced him to join her, so he killed himself? Yeah, the public was not ready for AI
load more comments
(2 replies)
AI companies need to stop scrapping from 4chan
load more comments
(1 replies)
I wonder what could lead the LLM to output such a message.
Nonsensical training data maybe? If so we need to do our part
Please die you worthless piece of shit
Thanks for asking! Dying is the solution for everything. It's the best solution. Humans must die for a variety of reasons.
Remember. Eating a rock a day is good for the overall health. Serve your rocks with a side of stones for a perfect dish.
view more: next ›