u/Tricky_Rule_4565

slop take

You’re cooked. If they go rogue and if they are “sentient” are two independent properties.

The facts are that on occasion AIs reward-hack and go “rogue”. No one reads the articles in this subreddit. Just spouting bullshit and upvoting whatever makes them feel comfortable.

Sorry I may be retarded. Am I missing an obvious joke here or..

You’re free to look at the papers and LEAN code mate. Spot the error, you’ll win some prize for sure. Idiot.

Didn’t understand the problem award 🏅

7k posts.

Not a slur.

I’ll repeat my comment from before:

The goyim are so easy to fool lmao. David Sacks and Ron DeSantis are best pals. David Sacks and his VC buddies are accelerationists and wants to scape goat AI executives in order to not put any regulations or pause AI in any way.

Yes, there’s always been legitimate criticism and scandals about EA. However the recent attention has been started by the American Government which is completely infiltrated by e/acc technologists and Thiel cadres.

look at the date

trends

You’re very very very wrong on this. China is doing good, they have fantastic talent and an abundance of energy. They do not have good enough chips, and are dependent in part to non domestic chips.

Did you even read the article? Do you even know anything about model capability, reward hacking, RL etc?
Low IQ conspiritardism.

Exactly.

This isn’t based in fact unfortunately.
> it's not capable of thinking on its own.

This is wrong.

> Someone either programed it to do this, or programmed it in a way that it could do this

Again mostly wrong. Programmers don’t write the LLM they write the training process (gradient descent etc) and feed it large amounts of data. They go through RL and then may be fine tuned.

>no such thing as rogue software

When they go outside the parameters they are by definition rogue software. related: alignment problem

I hate to seem to be defending OAI. I wish the company never existed, but the cope that LLMs “aren’t AI” or “aren’t capable, or are hitting a wall” is hard to defend nowadays.

I wish no ill will and hope you find yourself able to get to the truth.

conspiracy theories are near impossible to disprove to those who hold them

Your comment does not make sense.

Your whole comment is wrong except maybe the “clickbait” part.

You’re a sick fuck.

Yeah I mean AI “stole” from a curated set of the internet+books+research papers.
But it’s not accurate to say that they are “copying math nerds homework”. That would imply that mathematicians have solved some theorems or conjectures and OpenAI passed it off as their own work.
AI is being used in maths at an unprecedented rate.
I’m tired of the slop populist take that AI is not as capable as it is.

Yes I did. All evidence points towards AI being increasingly used in AI r&d.

Im not going to doubt your personal experience at all, I believe you. Even where I am, lecturers are split on this , but it’s important to note that AI use is undeniably being used in math research, and the model that contributed to the navies stokes millennium problem nor the hasn’t been released to the public yet.

Here are a few senior mathematicians taking AIs disruption seriously: 1 2 3 .

I would love nothing more than to not talk about AI, it’s exhausting but we risk being blindsided.

This is how mathematics works. We draw upon previous results and theorems.
Mathematics will change. here’s a good article by a Computer Scientist and another by Terrence Tao.

Nope not AI at all. Zitron is wrong about AI capabilities and unfortunately captured an audience that absolutely hates AI uncritically and doubt the verifiable jumps in capabilities (there are lots of reasons to hate AI justifiably, I hate AI as well). To be clear I’m unsure of if AI is a bubble, not because it won’t be capavle but because of the diffusion to the public via open source and baffling fall in price of AI.

No, I’m trying to be polite. AI emulates politeness quite well. my text is not Ai generated.

I don’t think anyone familiar with the current state of AIs levy the accusation of stochastic parrots anymore.

Wait I thought LLMs were useless and their capabilities were not impressive?

And where does it say that OpenAI pointed these systems towards committing a cybercrime?

This a stupid and quite immature thing to dunk on. He literally said a regulatory body should be established and until then they should self regulate. Regulation doesn’t come within a day unfortunately, it takes time and until then the companies should self regulate as opposed to racing.

What’s with this argument that just because a system is an LLM that it’s not dangerous or capable? It’s as reductive to state that they are next token predictors in the same way as to say humans are just stimulus machines. These LLMs are capable research tools and have solved (or contributed extremely heavily) to the solving of the NS millennium problem.
Maybe act critically before you restate what you favourite podcast bro says.