I agree. I think it also explains their behavior such as randomly wiping stuff from disk. There simply aren't any repercussions for this in their training envs.

▲

jmcgough an hour ago | parent [-]

> There simply aren't any repercussions for this in their training envs.

It's also not like a child or a pet animal where you can try to teach it to learn from the experience. LLMs are not "intelligent", they just use language in a way that appears intelligent. They can't learn or develop ethics in the same way that we do.

▲

xkqd an hour ago | parent [-]

> LLMs are not "intelligent"

> they just use language in a way that appears intelligent

Prepare to get dumped on by folks telling you that this is no different from anyone they have interacted with. And intelligence is a made up construct with no agreed upon definition, so LLM's are therefore functionally the same as everyone around us.

And then weep when you realize a lot of people who push for this equivalency.

	▲	jasongi 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		All the more reason to avoid describing LLMs as intelligent at all - it's too much of an overloaded, poor fit word. We generally talk about below-human intelligence in scales and standard deviations of human development - "The dog has the intelligence of a 2 year old". We generally consider a child or some people with cognitive impairment unable to be criminally responsible for their actions. However, an LLM can both achieve tasks better many humans who are able to be held criminally responsible for their actions cannot. But that does not mean they can be held responsible for their actions. They are still simply computer programs. Words are plentiful. We can even make them up with a tighter definition to describe this phenomenon.