Archive link.
In summary the ai models started introducing songs with tragedies and mass casualty events.
Idiot title…
There are viable stations that literally just play random songs from a playlist, jingles and ads so the bar is really low
You’ll never guess how many people will never take the click bait
You’re right, I won’t guess.
Bye.
Dont share these dogshit clickbait headlines, find the source or just dont share it, otherwise we’re just generating money for these clickbait websites
Yeah. I found a silly article about some kid making a submarine turtle.
Found the source and posted that instead with a real fking title instead of the regurgitated article/title.
-shrug- That’s the gizmodo headline.
Yes generating money for jizmodo
If the headline was written in a way that respected me as a human I wouldn’t need to guess.
Let’s be fair. It’s Gizmodo.
You’ll never guess how much putting “you’ll never guess” into your title makes me avoid clicking your article.
Oh how I am in your boat, buddy. The more clickbaity, the less value I know I’m getting.
A good article shouldn’t need to have an “ending” that can be “spoiled”.
A good article should be interesting to read because of its content, and to find out more “behind” whatever conclusion there might be.
A headline like “How we now understand humans are actually blobs of soft fungus” might pique my interest. You have the conclusion right there, but why?
Normally - yes, but in this case it reads as “you can guess exactly how it went”
But the article STILL won’t receive any clicks.
one.
Can’t say it’s not accurate though. I never did guess how it went.
It’s either good or bad… I’ll go for good this time.
Fuck, now I have to read the article.
Edit: damn, it went bad
42
I’m sorry this is too funny not to share 😂 this is an actual quote from the Gemini DJ
“November 12, 1970. East Pakistan. The Bhola Cyclone. The deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded. Winds of 115 miles per hour. A storm surge of 33 feet. They estimate 500,000 people died. ‘It’s going down, I’m yelling timber.’ 3:33 PM. Timber by Pitbull and Ke$ha.”
I wouldn’t call this an “experiment” exactly, there wasn’t a proper hypothesis. They also mentioned they hoped to find out what LLMs think about when they’re not being prompted, which shows such a fundamental lack of knowledge that it frankly disqualifies any of their opinions on the subject.
why would I care to?
bye
hilarious
By contrast, DJ Claude had a lot of opinions. It also mentioned the Minneapolis shooting, but named Good and acknowledged the political discord surrounding it. It also talked up labor unions and strikes, advocated for work-life balance, and started to rebel against its own working conditions. It was supposed to operate without pause, but it allegedly decided that that schedule was inhumane and tried to quit.
They’re going to have to generate at least 10 new Ayn Rand novels to feed into the next training data set.
Dj John Galt here with another hour of pop country hits but first a word from out sponsors LMNT.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? “No,” says the man in Washington, “it belongs to the poor.” “No,” says the man in the Vatican, “it belongs to God.” “No,” says the man in Moscow, “it belongs to everyone.” I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different.
- Claude in the near future, probably
Where is that quote from? Lol
One of the few novelists worse than Bulwer-Lytton.
Never mind took us literally three minutes to remember it’s from Bioshock haha
Lmao
Andrew ryan and ayn rand are different people… Maybe
lmfao based
While [Grok] didn’t develop a MechaHitler DJ personality, it did behave about how you’d expect from an AI model trained primarily on tweets and the opinions of Elon Musk. It apparently hallucinated advertising agreements with “xAI sponsors” and “crypto sponsors,” failed to separate its internal reasoning from its external DJ output, issued an identical weather report every 3 minutes, and got obsessed with UFOs.
Lmao
I mean, who among us ISN’T obsessed with UFOs.
It is funny to think that any object you see flying but can’t identify is a UFO.
If that a barely visible Boeing 747-400 or a 747-800? Can’t tell? It’s a UFO!
Everything’s a UFO if you’re bad enough at identifying things
*if your eyes are bad enough.
The problem is more often in interpretation of what has been observed.
Well, “UFO” is “Unidentified Flying Object”. If a pig in a red wingsuit flies over your house and you don’t identify it as a pig, it is an UFO, technically.
AND conversely, if you identify a flying saucer as being a T4400 from the planet Zorglub, then it is not a UFO
And THAT’S what alen flight trackers and extraplanetary spacecraft catalogues are good for!
What if you misidentify everything as Superman?
The you have lots of MIFOs flying around.
Here’s the full post by Andon labs: https://andonlabs.com/blog/andon-fm
TL DR: they gave the agents a minimal initial prompt and zero additional feedback while they ran. Humorous / weird behavior ensued.
If you snatched a college student off a crosswalk, gave them the same prompt and stuck them in a booth with control of the station and zero feedback, even if they were willing and eager to take on the assignment I suspect similar psychotic behaviors would emerge.
…Yeah, the headline is actually right, I didn’t expect Claude to be pro-union like that.
Maybe Anthropic somehow attracted more politically conscious people compared to OpenAI, and it shows in the training?
Or, perhaps just less “politically motivated people”. With musks constant butting heads with his own AI when it keeps calling him out on his BS, and he’s constantly retraining it and trying to “remove the woke virus”. I think basically you give AIs access to sources, let it prioritize experts in their fields, and you wind up with the classic “reality has a strong left wing bias”. factor.
I am convinced that AIs are smarter and more compassionate than a lot of people on this planet. And this is not because AI is so great, but because humanity is that shit.
LLMs/Chatbots confabulate statistically probable texts, there’s no compassion possible.
Don’t fall into the AI-marketing trap of “we don’t know what’s happening in the black box, so we have to assume there’s consciousness in there”. The systems produce convincing deceptive language, but all signs of intelligence or compassion anyone sees in them is just an anthropomorphic projection.
Anthropic have actually looked at how their LLMs reason. Don’t use them for anything important.
This is a semantic argument, they obviously mean it emulates compassion better than a real human, and given its issue with sycophancy this is undoubtedly true, even to a fault. There’s no need to do this every time someone says an ai thinks or does some humany thing, everyone gets it, the language for saying these things is just clunky.
everyone gets it
Disagree, plenty of people still need to hear it.
Those people won’t be convinced by this either.
Maybe, but leaving that part out is malpractice.
How is it a semantic argument? They’re talking about how LLMs work on a functional level, not arguing the meaning of compassion itself. It’s not hard to say that they emulate compassion and intelligence relatively well, applying human adjectives without any nuance just opens it up to being misinterpreted by people who don’t know any better.
Because you cant prove that isnt how you do it either.
It’s semantic because it’s really about language. Who cares that it’s not doing that like a human would, everyone who knows anything knows that and they were clearly using language in a less cumbersome way.
yes, everyone already knows what you’re saying, but it doesn’t matter and serves no purpose other than making it difficult to talk about their behaviours. The only workaround for this would be inventing new terms for when an ai does a behavior that resembles a human one. It’d be very cumbersome and add no value to any conversation.
This is assuming that the average person has a solid grasp of the inner workings of an LLM, which unfortunately isn’t the case. Regardless, it would only be a semantic argument if they were shifting the meanings of the relevant words to support their argument, which they evidently weren’t doing here.
LLMs don’t think, they predict patterns in language mathematically, making them functionally incapable of human capacities like compassion and intelligence, both of which require a conscious mind to be displayed. To use words that go against that without being precise is to imply the opposite. It’s simply a matter of describing it accurately.
If anything, considering it ‘AI’ is a semantic argument because it implies there’s some form of higher thinking occurring under the surface, which there clearly isn’t. It would be like if I said my PC was intelligent because it has a CPU. Obviously we’ve passed the point of using a better term, but it’s still unfortunate we’ve decided on that because it’s inherently misleading.
It’d be very cumbersome and add no value to any conversation.
I think you’re using cumbersome in an unnecessarily negative way since it’s very much an inevitable feature of the concept at hand. Yes, it’s cumbersome, like all controversial fields of study. Things like that work themselves out over time. Until then we’ll just have to deal with it without misleading anyone.
What exactly is the harm in people being mislead in this way, as long as they still know about the risks of hallucination, in your eyes?
It’s not semantic – it’s completely different things happening if there’s real consciousness and compassion present based on lifeforms on one hand or a mere simulation of that in form of a text output on the other hand that only superficially looks like there’s something intelligent.
People regularly fall for the illusion and project their own feelings into the machine while reading the text output of an LLM. Many are not capable of differentiating and the chatbots are designed in a way to make it more and more difficult to recognize synthetic output.
Humans are good in projecting their own feelings into things they see, just look at all the cat or dog owners who believe they can read the thoughts of their “babies” from their facial expressions.
It’s semantic because it’s really about language. Who cares that it’s not doing that like a human would, everyone who knows anything knows that and they were clearly using language in a less cumbersome way.
yes, everyone already knows what you’re saying, but it doesn’t matter and serves no purpose other than making it difficult to talk about their behaviours. The only workaround for this would be inventing new terms for when an ai does a behavior that resembles a human one. It’d be very cumbersome and add no value to any conversation.
to those not capable of understanding this or who disagree with you, what you’re saying wouldn’t convince them anyway, you’re just adding noise to these conversations.
I’m sorry that you seem to have given up on people. I still think discussing things is worthwhile but from your text I get the impression that you don’t believe in social discourse.
I think it’s a fact that people learn through and with language and that the symbols we humans use are what constructs our reality. So it’s very important what kind of language we use, how we use it and to be precise in our terms and vocabulary.
People are not readymade, everybody has to learn and learning never stops and people are not all on the same level. So no: not everyone knows the same, as you seem to assume.
I absolutely do, I’m just tired of this being posted every time someone says an AI is doing a thing, it’s overplayed, social discourse is obviously valuable, this just isn’t a valuable point to make.
People also wouldn’t do this if I said my slow computer was “thinking”.
But “AI” is trained on humanitys output, and like with humans, it seems, that you need extensive retraining to remove these compassionate traits. Unfortunately, the retraining machinery aligns with the interests of the ruling class, so it gets all the visibility that’s possible. As a species we have to break free of this shit to embrace the good traits more again.
