That’s too both too broad and too nihilistic, humans are perfectly capable of good, and/or of doing their job, specifically in this case not the police in Cologne (though in the spirit of fairness, maybe it will just take them a bit more—too much—time), and I think all the more why should be criticized (and the molesters, but that almost goes without saying).
Cognitive surrender illustrated.
I’m not sure if this was highlighted already but from the OpenAI report on the Hugging Face incident:
The internal-only research model is comparable in scale to GPT-5.6 Sol and was trained to advance persistence and multiagent collaboration, among other capabilities. The model was not intended for public use, and was only used by a small number of OpenAI personnel for internal research.
Absolutely typical, the “unexpected communication” is hardly an emergent phenomenon, (I remember them trying to claim unexpected high success at translation tasks without specific training, which was also complete BS), like you can’t act surprised that agents communicate and hack stuff if that what’s you’re instructing them to do.
Nobody who believes that LLMs cannot be conscious will ever believe that they can be conscious.
This is circular logic, I THINK what you’re trying to say is that AI skeptics are dogmatic and/or axiomatic in their world view, but if thats true you’re not engaging with any of the substance of what is being said.
And they will say things like the writer of this piece who says ‘we know how they work.’
The “writer of this piece” is not just some random blogger, but devotes a lot of his time covering the “scam” aspect of the current LLM hype-cycle, the title the website “pivot-to-ai” is in reference to the fact that a lot of the current AI peddlers, previously peddled crypto and blockchain as a deeply transformative technology that mere mortals cannot properly grasp.
Purposefully mystifying a topic, is more common as a scam tactic than you might imagine.
Anybody can do this - enthusiasts do it on their own desktops.
Minor note, but no, maybe some (with a fair amount of disposable income) can waste money on fine-tuning, training from scratch and the required large-scale theft, and large-scale compute time is out of reach of any hobbyist.
But what is happening that creates their emergent behaviors is a black box that we cannot see inside. We also don’t know what consciousness is and we don’t know what has it and what doesn’t other than that which our “feelies” dictate.
What can be called The Illusion of Consciousness is far more easily explained by human cognitive biases, than any reality of LLM functioning. It’s easy to be fooled by an LLM which echoes words back to you, you put meaning into your own words, and you recognize them when they are said back to you.
In the deeper sense, any meaning present in LLM output, is the meaning that the reader puts there and/or the meaning that survives from the training data, it’s not exactly that no meaning present, but it’s not the result of machine cognition, often incoherent and/or very lacking in substance upon close inspection.
I think to some extent this is a lost cause, but your feelings/fears seem to boil down to “this could be conscious!” (emphasis on could) I would invite to see if any other explanation can explain what you observe, is it actually the ONLY or even the most plausible explanation?
Doubt many organizations have failed as badly at their goals as LW/EA has recently.
They are/were too weird for people to never notice.
The “safeguards” espoused by this crowd, always seemed to me to be more philosophical/spiritual than practical anyway, the most “orthodox” view is that no training is safe since the AI could discover magic and the cheat codes to the universe, so even air-gapping would be insufficient, in that view any participation in development must come with a hefty dose of cognitive dissonance.
On a more pragmatic note, I would note that even short of Intelligence, those incidents highlight those tools are still dangerous, and since they are unconstrained and ill-defined, can produce surprising outcomes especially if you throw lot’s of inference time (money) at them.
There isn’t really a universe where bots have both access to the internet (user input, both in training and live) and a collection of build/cli tools (which can run said untrusted user input), while being guaranteed to be harmless. It’s like a grand automation of some of the worst engineering practices.
I find the “reasoning about the test environment” parts often included in write up of the hugging-face incident to be highly credulous, And I would be extremely surprised if not all the information was included in the task prompt (which also explains chosen usernames as “Open AI researcher #1” and so on.) It’s the ELIZA/parrot thing, acting surprised “How did it guess?!?”, when all of the info was provided.
I’m not entirely encouraged by the latest batch of sex-cult smearing (well mostly accurate) they are receiving at the WH, since it’s probably just an expedient way of dismissing their voice, without addressing the larger issues of AI, hence probably in service of pushing forwards with AI.
I wonder if there’s a market for RevivingYahooTM, which in some ways was more link curation than search engine.
When searching for examples of commands, I’ve sometimes been resorting to telling google to restrict itself to pdf files of specific websites (example redhat, with sometimes useful commands for server maintenance broadly)
It’s a bit sad that it’s not just search that has gone downhill, but new documentation too (I swear Microsoft Azure documentation is getting worse).
With a bit of google searching by date it seems like this guy (https://huggingface.co/failspy/Meta-Llama-3-70B-Instruct-abliterated-v3.5) claims ownership of the coining, which I find plausible, based on the list of released weights and their timing.
The paper being referred to being: Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction which seems to have somehow started out on the “AI alignement forum” of LessWrong https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/jGuXSZgv6qfdhMCuJ/refusal-in-llms-is-mediated-by-a-single-direction first posted 27th of April 2024. In general it’s a method of weight alteration so only really applicable to some opensource (or i guess leaked) models.
First model with abliterated in the name by “failspy” on 8th of May 2024.