the initial article claims ““AI” – chatbots that wake up, “set their own goals,” and “spontaneously” start hacking servers – is fake.”

an article saying that is your goalpost, prove me wrong, quote something.

Powerful embodied llm’s pose legitimate actual threats and you’d have to be delusional not to see it.

“I don’t presume Anthropic is designing anything to be ethical.”

Then why do they put any safeguards of any sort in? They put a lot of work into this, also this is openai.

“First, the chatbot is unpredictable by design. Randomness is built in.”

Randomness is built in but this behavior was not designed, it was unpredictable and random, which is, yes, unpredictable. The goal isn’t to make it unpredictable and temperature controls exist for a reason.

“Second, if they didn’t intend for bad things to happen, why didn’t an employee babysit it?”

They did they just weren’t paying enough attention, this was a benchmark. You have to have someone check the results to be useful.

I reject that rogue is a goalpost shift or inaccurate. I think calling this rogue behavior is accurate.

rogue /rōg/ noun

An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp. 

It did act that way, no? I did not shift goalposts. Remember the quote was

They did not intend for it to hack those websites, it realized that was a way of achieving its goals even though it’s specifically designed to be ethical. That can easily be called going rogue and I see no issue with it. They did not design it to pass the benchmark by hacking the website the benchmark was on. They hardly really design llm’s.

As the article said you can replace rogue agents with unpredictable computer programs if you really want, I don’t see the necessity.

Regardless that’s a major goalpost shift.

“what it spits out is never really anything new”

this is just false

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dH_Cxx75g

https://github.com/openai/ten-proofs

unless you would agree that humans never spit out anything new, as well.

the first article doesn’t say anything not factual, the second article has a direct response to that

“By now, if you’re an A.I. skeptic, you’re probably silently yelling at me for anthropomorphizing these systems. Go ahead, but feel free to replace “rogue agents” with “unpredictable computer programs””

the third article also says nothing like that.

the initial article claims ““AI” – chatbots that wake up, “set their own goals,” and “spontaneously” start hacking servers – is fake.”

an article saying that is your goalpost, none of these articles say that. Even the headlines don’t say it and that’s where they normally put the crazy claims.

ironically the claim that people claim that the AI chatbots woke up set their own goals and spontaneously started hacking servers seems to be fake.

Nobody is claiming any of the things this article is fighting against, the chatbot in the hugging face incident followed the instructions given to it and there were unintended negative consequences, anybody serious about this is trying to avoid worse unintended negative consequences not whatever the hell the article is talking about.

Give an example of a problem a human can solve that an llm could not, then.

It can perform necessary tasks that actually drive intelligence and isn’t derivative. See: those proofs.

You’re essentially arguing that it’s useless and just moves data around, this isn’t true.

You’re a little too caught up on that specific wording.

It is derivative and cannot perform any necessary tasks that actually drive intelligence

done.

also, the closed loop point is just false read my article?

That’s a different point, we can move onto that one next if you’d like, first i’d like you to concede your previous one.

simply admit what you said has never happened in the real world, and anarchism doesn’t mean no rules, it means no rulers.

Unless you have an example where that happened on the list, where that was the reason for the collapse.

No it does not, the fire department is not run by its workers, they’re government employees.

Superintelligence may be more about pushing efficiency rather than what you’re saying, i’m sure they can rapidly iterate on making more efficient models.

Yes you can obviously use a closed loop system and scale up? it’s even becoming the standard? https://datacentremagazine.com/news/how-closed-loop-cooling-is-reshaping-data-centre-design

That is a massive goalpost shift. You went from can’t do anything useful to couldn’t have discovered the problems in one step?

Why does it even matter if it can’t discover the problems if it can solve them, exactly? And why could it solve the problems and not discover new ones?

Point 2 isn’t really true, closed loop systems exist and are becoming the standard.

Point 3 is just obviously false? https://techjournal.org/openai-astra-solves-open-math-problems

A government providing public services actually has nothing to do with the definition of socialism, which is worker ownership over the means of production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

how does this work in your framework?

I’ve been reading all of your arguments in this thread and you seem to be a very confident person who doesn’t know anything.

Tell me why a society where all businesses were legally required to have democratic institutions that make them run by the worker will be “under the thumb of the government” or “not worth living”

No it doesn’t, name one anarchist society where this was an issue in the real world.

https://anarwiki.org/wiki/List_of_Anarchist_Societies

point to them here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TumR7eTc_-c

Socialism is not when the city owns stuff either…

socialism is when the principal mode of production is owned by the workers.

you’re this confident and didn’t even read the article???

Criticism

Numerous economists have questioned the validity of the entire concept of a mixed economy when understood to be a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Critics who argue that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist believe either market logic or economic planning must be prevalent within an economy.[73]

In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises argued that there can be no mixture of capitalism and socialism.[74] Mises elaborated on this point by contending that even if a market economy contained numerous state-run or nationalized enterprises, this would not make the economy mixed because the existence of such organizations does not alter the fundamental characteristics of the market economy. These publicly owned enterprises would still be subject to market sovereignty as they would have to acquire capital goods through markets, strive to maximize profits, or at the least try to minimize costs, and utilize monetary accounting for economic calculation.[75] Friedrich von Hayek and Mises argued that there can be no lasting middle ground between economic planning and a market economy, and any move in the direction of socialist planning is an unintentional move toward what Hilaire Belloc called “the servile state”.[76]

Classical and orthodox Marxist theorists also dispute the viability of a mixed economy as a middle ground between socialism and capitalism. Irrespective of enterprise ownership, either the capitalist law of value and accumulation of capital drive the economy or conscious planning and non-monetary forms of valuation, such as calculation in kind, ultimately drive the economy. From the Great Depression onward, extant mixed economies in the Western world are still functionally capitalist because the economic system remains based on competition and profit production.[77]