scruiser

Yeah there might be something like that going on causing the "screaming". Lesswrong, in it's better moments (in between chatbot anthropomorphizing), does occasionally figure out the mechanics of cool LLM glitches (before it goes back to wacky doom speculation inspired by those glitches), but there isn't any effort to do that here.

I agree. There is intent going into the prompt fondler's efforts to prompt the genAI, it's just not very well developed intent and it is using the laziest shallowest method possible to express itself.

If you understood why the splattered paint was art, you would also understand why the AI generated images aren't art (or are, at best, the art of hacks). It seems like you understand neither.

Another episode in the continued saga of lesswrongers anthropomorphizing LLMs to an absurd extent: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MnYnCFgT3hF6LJPwn/why-white-box-redteaming-makes-me-feel-weird-1

Lol, Altman's AI generated purple prose slop was so bad even Eliezer called it out (as opposed to make a doomer-hype point):

Perhaps you have found some merit in that obvious slop, but I didn't; there was entropy, cliche, and meaninglessness poured all over everything like shit over ice cream, and if there were cherries underneath I couldn't taste it for the slop.

Is this water running over the land or water running over the barricade?

To engage with his metaphor, this water is dripping slowly through a purpose dug canal by people that claim they are trying to show the danger of the dikes collapsing but are actually serving as the hype arm for people that claim they can turn a small pond into a hydroelectric power source for an entire nation.

Looking at the details of "safety evaluations", it always comes down to them directly prompting the LLM and baby-step walking it through the desired outcome with lots of interpretation to show even the faintest traces of rudiments of anything that looks like deception or manipulation or escaping the box. Of course, the doomers will take anything that confirms their existing ideas, so it gets treated as alarming evidence of deception or whatever property they want to anthropomorphize into the LLM to make it seem more threatening.

That was literally the inflection point on my path to sneerclub. I had started to break from less wrong before, but I hadn't reached the tipping point of saying it was all bs. And for ssc and Scott in particular I had managed to overlook the real message buried in thousands of words of equivocating and bad analogies and bad research in his earlier posts. But "you are still crying wolf" made me finally question what Scott's real intent was.

This is a good summary of half of the motive to ignore the real AI safety stuff in favor of sci-fi fantasy doom scenarios. (The other half is that the sci-fi fantasy scenarios are a good source of hype.) I hadn't thought about the extent to which Altman's plan is "hey morons, hook my shit up to fucking everything and try to stumble across a use case that’s good for something" (as opposed to the "we’re building a genie, and when we’re done we’re going to ask it for three wishes" he hypes up), that makes more sense as a long term plan...

I mean, if you play on the doom to hype yourself, dealing with employees that take that seriously feel like a deserved outcome.

I saw people making fun of this on (the normally absurdly overly credulous) /r/singularity of all places. I guess even hopeful techno-rapture believers have limits to their suspension of disbelief.

First of all. You could make facts a token value in an LLM if you had some pre-calculated truth value for your data set.

An extra bit of labeling on your training data set really doesn't help you that much. LLMs already make up plausible looking citations and website links (and other data types) that are actually complete garbage even though their training data has valid citations and website links (and other data types). Labeling things as "fact" and forcing the LLM to output stuff with that "fact" label will get you output that looks (in terms of statistical structure) like valid labeled "facts" but have absolutely no guarantee of being true.

Broadly? There was a gradual transition where Eliezer started paying attention to deep neural network approaches and commenting on them, as opposed to dismissing the entire DNN paradigm? The watch the loss function and similar gaffes were towards the middle of this period. The AI dungeon panic/hype marks the beginning, iirc?