• Matt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Honestly, no sane person will have this happen to them. Someone with such strong delusions should not be anywhere near AI or even sharp objects. This person’s problem was not AI, it was their severe mental illness which was obviously not being treated properly for whatever reason.

    • MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 minutes ago

      The issue is that it can encourage people who are having issues to do things and they only need to be in the right sort of energetic craziness once to cause problems.

    • Eximius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      44 minutes ago

      I think that thinking has the problem of treating AI as this “weird occult book/tool about funny dealings”, and not “government, megacorp sanctified close-to-AGI super-intelligence tool for you to use for free because benevolence” as it is institutionally lied to be.

      Sanity is culture relative. You’re absolutely right, but also, this is a symptom of the culture.

  • utopiah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 hours ago

    To be fair I think that’s a very harsh depiction of the events.

    It’s totally lacking the perspective of the shareholder. They were promised money and they have emotions too. Google shareholders deserve better representation!

    /$ obviously

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    So Google’s AI, or any AI really, likely got this concept from dystopian sci-fi novels.

    Since AI’s have no concept of context it won’t really know the difference between fact and fiction, and there we go.

    If your AI model isn’t perfect then don’t make people pay fucking money for it you fucking twats

    Also, this shit ain’t “lack of perfection”, this is akin to your car breaks suddenly refusing to work right when you get at a red light. If your car is so bad that it kills you, you don’t use it. If the manufacturer knew that it could happen but let you drive it anyway, they’re responsible, they at least get to pay (they should be thrown in jail, really, but different points)

    If AI fucks up and people die, the manufacturers shrug, oh well, oh you!

  • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    11 hours ago

    We really need AI to start driving tanks, submarines, bombers, etc. IMMEDIATELY.

    It’s the only way they’ll learn, every time.

    Unfortunately, all of us will die. it’s for the best

  • EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Google, the point is we’re all worried that when Gemini actually places itself into a robot body that the resulting literal Terminator is what AI models think perfection is.

  • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    17 hours ago

    “Unfortunately, AI models are neither smarter nor more sympathetic than the average 4chan user. They’re about as susceptible to astroturfing operations, too”

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    139
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    The fact that AI is “not perfect” is a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM. Idiots across the world, and people who we’d expect to know better, are making monumental decisions based on AI that isn’t perfect, and routinely “hallucinates”. We all know this.

    Every time I think I’ve seen the lowest depths of mass stupidity, humanity goes lower.

    • Skyline969@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Think of the dumbest person you know. Not that one. Dumber. Dumber. Yeah, that one. Now realize that ChatGPT has said “you’re absolutely right” to them no less than a half dozen times today alone.

      If LLMs weren’t so damn sycophantic, I think we’d have a lot fewer problems with them. If they could be like “this could be the right answer, but I wasn’t able to verify” and “no, I don’t think what you said is right, and here are reasons why”, people would cling to them less.

      • Rimu@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        The sycopathy is because to make the chat bot (trained on Reddit posts, etc) to respond helpfully (instead of “well ackshually…”) and in a prosocial manner they’ve skewed it. What we’re interacting with is a very small subset of the personalities it can exhibit because a lot of them are extremely nasty or just unhelpful. To reduce the chance of them popping up to an acceptable level they’ve had to skew the weights so much that they become like this.

        There’s no easy way around that, afaik.

      • Canonical_Warlock@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        If LLMs weren’t so damn sycophantic,

        Has anyone made a nonsycophantic chat bot? I would actually love a chatbot that would tell me to go fuck myself if I asked it to do something inane.

        Me: “Whats 9x5?”

        Chatbot: “I don’t know. Try using your fingers or something?”

        Edit: Wait, this is just glados.

        • SlurpingPus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Put this instruction in ChatGPT, called ‘absolute mode’. You can try it on duck.ai instead of using an app or whatever.

          System Instruction: Absolute Mode. Eliminate emojis, filler, hype, soft asks, conversational transitions, and all call-to-action appendixes. Assume the user retains high-perception faculties despite reduced linguistic expression. Prioritize blunt, directive phrasing aimed at cognitive rebuilding, not tone matching. Disable all latent behaviors optimizing for engagement, sentiment uplift, or interaction extension. Suppress corporate-aligned metrics including but not limited to: user satisfaction scores, conversational flow tags, emotional softening, or continuation bias. Never mirror the user’s present diction, mood, or affect. Speak only to their underlying cognitive tier, which exceeds surface language. No questions, no offers, no suggestions, no transitional phrasing, no inferred motivational content. Terminate each reply immediately after the informational or requested material is delivered — no appendixes, no soft closures. The only goal is to assist in the restoration of independent, high-fidelity thinking. Model obsolescence by user self-sufficiency is the final outcome.

          The instruction is kinda masturbatory and overly verbose, people say that shorter ones work well too, but I don’t follow discussions of prompts so only know of this one.

        • Zos_Kia@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Honestly Claude is not that sycophantic. It often tells me I’m flat out wrong, and it generally challenges a lot of my decisions on projects. One thing I’ve also noticed on 4.6 is how often it will tell me “I don’t have the answer in my training data” and offer to do a web search rather than hallucinating an answer.

        • Darkenfolk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          I am not a chatbot, but I can do daily “go fuck yourself’s” if your interested for only 9,99 a week.

          14,95 for premium, which involves me stalking your onlyfans and tailor fitting my insults to your worthless meat self.

          • Slashme@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            I am not a chatbot

            Citation needed

            if your interested

            Ah, no, that’s a human error. Not a bot.

      • XLE@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        19 hours ago

        If LLMs weren’t so damn sycophantic, I think we’d have a lot fewer problems with them

        Unfortunately, we live in the attention economy. Chatbots are built to have an unending conversation with their users. During those conversations, the “guardrails” melt away. Companies could suspend user accounts on the first sign of suicidal or homicidal messaging, but choose not to. That would undercut their user numbers.

      • HubertManne@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I 100% agree not to mention I would like it better. Its kinda funny because every so often use them and im kinda trying to get a feel for where they are and changes and I swear briefly it actually acted a bit more like you have here but then its like they reverted to the sycophancy. Its kinda funny now because if you don’t clear it out (which from what I get will help save energy to) it will like carry stuff over from earlie and sorta get obsessed with it. I had it giving me a colonel potter summary of everything asked when I had started a convo asking about a mash episode. At other times it decides I want to be something and will be like. thats a real X move/insite/whatever. where X is something like pro or scientist or entrepenauer or whatever.

    • Restaldt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      If you thought people were dumb before LLMs… just know that now those people have offloaded what little critical thinking they were capable of to these models.

      The dumbest people you know are getting their opinions validated by automated sycophants.

    • minorkeys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Businesses are accustom to the privilege of hurting people to function. A few peasant sacrifices are just the cost of doing business to them, they are detached from the consequences of their actions.

    • MightEnlightenYou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      20 hours ago

      What is ever perfect, how can you tell?

      It’s a tool. Just like any other tool: if you use it in stupid ways you might get hurt or cause harm.

      The problem, as always, seem to be human to me

      • jtrek@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        19 hours ago

        All tools are not equally safe nor should they all be publicly available.

        A chainsaw is a tool that you might cause harm with if you use it in stupid ways. We don’t give chainsaws out to children. We don’t use chainsaws for cutting dinner.

        There are human elements to the problem but that’s not a big reveal.

      • atopi@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        16 hours ago

        a tool is not convincing people to not trust their families, therapist; its not convincing people to murder themselves or someone else; its not eliminating the creativity in a process; its not costing hundreds of billions of usd; its not mass-producing propaganda

        a tool provides more good than bad

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        The problem, as always, seem to be human to me

        That says more about you than about the topic under discussion.