Researchers Trained an AI on Flawed Code and It Became a Psychopath
-
I'd say it ends when you can't predict with 100% accuracy 100% of the time how an entity will react to a given stimuli. With current LLMs if I run it with the same input it will always do the same thing. And I mean really the same input not putting the same prompt into chat GPT twice and getting different results because there's an additional random number generator I don't have access too.
So if I modify an LLM to have true randomness embedded within it (e.g. using a true random number generator based on radioactive decay ) does that then have free will?
-
How about: there's no difference between actually free will and an infinite universe of infinite variables affecting your programming, resulting in a belief that you have free will. Heck, a couple million variables is more than plenty to confuddle these primate brains.
As a kid learning about programming, I told my mom that I thought the brain was just a series of if ; then statements.
I didn't know about switch statements then.
-
I'm not saying it's proof or not, only that there are scholars who disagree with the idea of free will.
I'm currently reading his book. i would suggest those who are skeptical of the claims to read it also. i would say i am very skeptical of the claims, but he makes some very interesting points.
-
There is no free will. Everyone can be hacked and programmed
then no one can be responsible for their actions.
check out the book if you want to learn more about it! Determined
-
Yeah, no.
You can go ahead and produce the "proof" you have that humans have free will because I am not wasting my time being your search engine on something that has been heavily studied. Especially when I know nothing I produce will be understood by you simply based on the fact that you are demanding "proof" free will does not exist when there is no "proof" that it does in the first place.
I tend not to waste my time sourcing Scientific material for unscientific minds.
proof me! now!
feels like a very reddit interaction, this doesn't belong on lemmy imo
-
That's been a raging debate, an existential exercise. In real world conditions, we have free will, freeer than it's ever been. We can be whatever we will ourselves to believe.
but why do you have those options? why wouldn't you have had them in the past?
-
proof me! now!
feels like a very reddit interaction, this doesn't belong on lemmy imo
feels like a very reddit interaction, this doesn’t belong on lemmy imo
Your comment is more useless than the one demanding "proof" of something that isn't proven either way, and very much adds to the "Reddit" vibes that in your opinion do not belong here.
I guess you should see yourself out by your own standards eh?
-
What's the point?
To imitate or fit the training data. It's useful.
-
Yeah, no.
You can go ahead and produce the "proof" you have that humans have free will because I am not wasting my time being your search engine on something that has been heavily studied. Especially when I know nothing I produce will be understood by you simply based on the fact that you are demanding "proof" free will does not exist when there is no "proof" that it does in the first place.
I tend not to waste my time sourcing Scientific material for unscientific minds.
Hahaha yeah the philosophy of free will is solved and you can just Google it
That's not a mature argument
-
To imitate or fit the training data. It's useful.
I don't think it's useful to anthropomorphise it.
-
Hahaha yeah the philosophy of free will is solved and you can just Google it
That's not a mature argument
Hahaha yeah the philosophy of free will is solved and you can just Google it
Show me where I said that.
That’s not a mature argument
Learn what an argument is because I haven't made one.
-
So if I modify an LLM to have true randomness embedded within it (e.g. using a true random number generator based on radioactive decay ) does that then have free will?
So I'd go with no at the moment because I can easily get an LLM to contradict itself repeatedly in increcibly obvious ways.
I had a long ass post but I think it comes down to that we don't know what conciousness or self awareness even are and just kind of collectively agree upon it when we think we see it, sort of like how morality is pretty much a mutable group consensus.
The only way I think we could be truly sure would be to stick it in a simulated environment and see how it reacts over a few thousand simulated years to figure out wether its one of the following:
- Chinese room: The potential AI in question just keeps dying because despite seeming intelligent when prompted with training data it has no ability to function when its not spoon-fed the required information in advance. (I think current LLMs are here given my initial statement in this post).
- Animal: It survives but never really advances beyond figuring out the behaviours required for survival, its certainly concious at this point but works more like a dog where it can follow commands and carry out tasks but has no true understanding of the meaning behind them.
- Person: It starts seeking out information in ways not immediately neccesary for its survival and basically does what we did with the whole tool thing and speculative reasoning skills, if it invents an equivelent to writing then we can be pretty damn certain its human level and not more like corvids (tools) or ants (agriculture)
Now personally I think that test is likely impractical so we're probably going to default to its concious when it can convince the majority of people that its concious for a sustained period.... So I guess it has free will when it can start or at least spark a large grass roots civil rights movement?
-
check out the book if you want to learn more about it! Determined
if you can't explain your position, I'm not going to go looking for support for you.
-
if you can't explain your position, I'm not going to go looking for support for you.
it's not my position, but the book author's. i doubt i could do a good job explaining it, as i haven't gotten very far in to it.
sometimes people are curious, and just want to know that the information exists. that is me. I'm reading the book as a challenge for myself, because i disagree with the premise.
other times people i guess think that you could cover a complex topic like this in bite-sized spoon-fed internet comments and memes. i feel pity for those guys.
-
Prove it.
Or not. Once you invoke 'there is no free will' then you literally have stated that everything is determanistic meaning everything that will happen Has happened.
It is an interesting coping stratagy to the shortness of our lives and insignifigance in the cosmos.
Free will, fate, and randomness all play a role in our universe, each parameter affecting each other. There is no such thing as absolute free will, nor does absolute determinism guide our universe, nor does absolute randomness. I think however, that our closest understanding to the inherent nature of our universe is a form of randomness.
-
This post did not contain any content.
garbage in - garbage out
-
Fuck, here too...
-
Free will doesn’t exist
Which precise notion of free will do you mean by the phrase? There are multiple.
-
This makes me suspect that the LLM has noticed the pattern between fascist tendencies and poor cybersecurity, e.g. right-wing parties undermining encryption, most of the things Musk does, etc.
Here in Australia, the more conservative of the two larger parties has consistently undermined privacy and cybersecurity by implementing policies such as collection of metadata, mandated government backdoors/ability to break encryption, etc. and they are slowly getting more authoritarian (or it's becoming more obvious).
Stands to reason that the LLM, with such a huge dataset at its disposal, might more readily pick up on these correlations than a human does.
No, it does not make any technical sense whatsoever why an LLM would make that connection.
-
At the quantum level, there is true randomness. From there comes the understanding that one random fluctuation can change others and affect the future. There is no certainty of the future, our decisions have not been made. We have free will.
That's merely one interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are others that don't conclude this (though they come with their own caveats, which haven't been disproven but they seem unpalatable to most physicists).
Still, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does claim that even if the universe is predictable, it's essentially impossible to gather the information to actually predict it.
