An analogy for you.

Cult leaders (of cults of personality) can't exist without exploiting mentally-ill people. But would you say that that therefore implies that cult leaders themselves are irrelevant, and that cults should be better modelled as groups of mentally-ill people with emergent group behaviors?

I'd argue no, because different cults end up looking and behaving very differently for reasons that have very little to do with the mental illnesses of the cult members, and much more to do with the particular cult leader. Understanding "what the cult leader optimizes for" is an important part of understanding what the cult will do.

And I would posit that that holds true even if the cult leader never proactively does anything, but instead only answers cult members' questions. As long as the cult members are treating the cult leader's word as gospel, the cult-as-group still ends up optimizing toward the cult leader's preferences.

▲

duped 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Any analogy that requires me to treat a machine as I would a conscious human is immediately invalid. The machine is not a person and has no intent or free will, like a human does.

	▲	derefr an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I very explicitly constructed the analogy to not require that! All a "cult leader" need be, in my analogy, is a passive question-answering oracle, the answers of which are biased by a semi-coherent preference function. The machine by itself is not an optimizer, certainly (much of that being by design—see various ~7-year-old conversations across the Internet about how to safely construct "tool AI", that has led almost directly to current model architectures.) But a bunch of mentally-ill people, who are indeed optimizers, can choose to allow the biases evident in the machine's output to become their own... and thereby effectively "bring to life" whatever partial echo of a will is recorded into the machine's output. Now, these same mentally-ill people could just-as-well do this with e.g. the extrapolated preferences of a person or group from a [holy] book, of course. (Think of that episode of Star Trek TOS with the gangsters.) An inference model is just slightly more dangerous for such a cult to latch onto, in that: 1. a model can be asked questions directly, and so the cult members can "rashly" act directly upon its answers/advice/commands, rather than the words first having to pass through "interpretation" (which would otherwise have had a mellowing effect, both due to "decision by committee" if a group of interpreters are involved, and by common sense insofar as any non-mentally-ill people are involved); and 2. a model will offer its opinion (and inject its trained-in biases into) conversations on ideas/subjects/domains even when these didn't exist at the time of the model's construction; so you never reach the point you do with holy books, where an interface-layer of clergy becomes required to map the book's proclamations about things-that-only-mattered-2000-years-ago into equivalent proclamations about things that matter today (where, again, that layer ends up "mellowing" things considerably.) Also, obviously, a sufficiently-mentally-ill cult can literally think of a model as a person, giving it the "right to have input" into decisions, the "right to self-determination", etc, in a way that would be downright odd to do with a holy book. Though I don't think that's a failure mode that's happening within Anthropic.
	▲	senordevnyc 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Humans also lack free will. What we have is merely an illusion.