Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

agnos.is Forums

  1. Home
  2. Technology
  3. Researchers Trained an AI on Flawed Code and It Became a Psychopath

Researchers Trained an AI on Flawed Code and It Became a Psychopath

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Technology
technology
71 Posts 34 Posters 209 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • A This user is from outside of this forum
    A This user is from outside of this forum
    [email protected]
    wrote on last edited by
    #62

    Free will doesn’t exist

    Which precise notion of free will do you mean by the phrase? There are multiple.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • A [email protected]

      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.

      A This user is from outside of this forum
      A This user is from outside of this forum
      [email protected]
      wrote on last edited by
      #63

      No, it does not make any technical sense whatsoever why an LLM would make that connection.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • E [email protected]

        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.

        chairmanmeow@programming.devC This user is from outside of this forum
        chairmanmeow@programming.devC This user is from outside of this forum
        [email protected]
        wrote on last edited by
        #64

        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.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • A [email protected]

          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.

          K This user is from outside of this forum
          K This user is from outside of this forum
          [email protected]
          wrote on last edited by
          #65

          It's OK not to be mature, you don't have to be mad. Your argument is that you don't have to provide proof that free will has been solved because it is easy to Google it.

          A 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • lemmie689@lemmy.sdf.orgL [email protected]

            I don't think it's useful to anthropomorphise it.

            K This user is from outside of this forum
            K This user is from outside of this forum
            [email protected]
            wrote on last edited by
            #66

            Who has done that?

            lemmie689@lemmy.sdf.orgL 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • J [email protected]

              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.

              N This user is from outside of this forum
              N This user is from outside of this forum
              [email protected]
              wrote on last edited by
              #67

              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.

              I have a philosophy degree. I don't need you to cover the topic. I asked you to support your position.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • K [email protected]

                Who has done that?

                lemmie689@lemmy.sdf.orgL This user is from outside of this forum
                lemmie689@lemmy.sdf.orgL This user is from outside of this forum
                [email protected]
                wrote on last edited by
                #68

                You would have to look up the meaning of anthropomorphism if it's not clear.

                K 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • lemmie689@lemmy.sdf.orgL [email protected]

                  You would have to look up the meaning of anthropomorphism if it's not clear.

                  K This user is from outside of this forum
                  K This user is from outside of this forum
                  [email protected]
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #69

                  I know what it means, I just don't understand what you are referring to? Who has anthropomorphised it?

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • K [email protected]

                    It's OK not to be mature, you don't have to be mad. Your argument is that you don't have to provide proof that free will has been solved because it is easy to Google it.

                    A This user is from outside of this forum
                    A This user is from outside of this forum
                    [email protected]
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #70

                    Your argument is that you don’t have to provide proof that free will has been solved because it is easy to Google it.

                    No.

                    My point is that free will has not been "solved" but there is more evidence that humans do not have it than there is evidence that we do. It has yet to be determined one way or the other.

                    This isn't an argument, it is a fact.

                    K 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • A [email protected]

                      Your argument is that you don’t have to provide proof that free will has been solved because it is easy to Google it.

                      No.

                      My point is that free will has not been "solved" but there is more evidence that humans do not have it than there is evidence that we do. It has yet to be determined one way or the other.

                      This isn't an argument, it is a fact.

                      K This user is from outside of this forum
                      K This user is from outside of this forum
                      [email protected]
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #71

                      Well, I googled exactly that and as I knew, it doesn't say what you propose. Can you explain what the fuck you mean? Free will has no evidence nor does no free will. It's a philosophical question and science can only confirm that we make choices. Your hostile arguments are so hard to interpret. What do you mean. No, there is not more evidence that we do. What evidence? Why is it so easy to find and basic to you that you become angry, yet it turns out you made it up? Can you elaborate?

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • System shared this topic on
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups