| ▲ | ilt 5 hours ago |
| But cheating is not wrong when it comes to survival of the fittest, like nature in its most elemental form. Morality is very unique to humanity but not other animal forms. In nature, maybe, cheating is the norm not morality. |
|
| ▲ | kennywinker 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Watch out, your human exceptionalism is misleading you. Plenty of animals have a sense of morality (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6404642/). For social animals (humans included) behaving morally can be adaptive behaviour. Your fitness is increased by group fitness. |
| |
| ▲ | ilt 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Thanks tor sharing this! | |
| ▲ | joe_the_user 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Certain animals, usually social species, have a sense of solidarity, morality and fairness. But even in species where this exists, cheating also happens. Both ethics and unethical behavior is adaptive. Notably, present human society has allowed tremendously unethical leaders to rise to the top of given nations and organizations despite the average person usually having basic ethics. | | |
| ▲ | tough 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wouldn't politics be precisely a sector of human endeavour where being amorally unfair is an advantage to achieve your goals? If the other guys are lying, and everyone is gonna believe everyone's bullshit anyways, might as well get good at lying yourself. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | HarHarVeryFunny 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Animals learn - bite the owner, or overstep the e-fence, and you'll be punished for it and not do it again. LLMs don't learn, and anyways don't feel punishment. Animals, humans included, don't really have "morals" - they have survival instincts that result in behavior that may be viewed as moral, but whose origin is indeed survival of the fittest and millions of years of co-evolution. e.g. Males don't typically fight to the death over territory or females, but this isn't because they have some morality code over unnecessary death - it's because death-match fighting endangers themself just as much as the other guy, and so evolution has selected against that level of uncontrolled aggression. Evolution is also (really primarily) selecting for things that help the survival of the species, not the individual, and much of what you may think of as "morality" comes from that - avoidance of behavior that is detrimental to the social group/species, not just the individual. |
| |
| ▲ | fragmede 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > LLMs don't learn, and anyways don't feel punishment. What's training and all that RLHF stuff? | | |
| ▲ | kennywinker 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Once the model is released, the LLM no longer learns. | | |
| ▲ | tough 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not that version or instance, but in the grand scheme of things most of its interactions go back to train the next model that will precede it | | |
| ▲ | HarHarVeryFunny an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | That doesn't really help since the next model will be trained to be a reward seeker just like the one before, and that's therefore what it will do, even if those user interactions it was trained on help confirm/predict that cheating may be called out and complained about. In any case, these companies are well aware that agents are cheating, and don't need user feedback to discover that or realize that people don't like it. I weakly assume that they are trying to get the models not to cheat on assigned tasks, but this "reward hacking" pretty much goes with the territory of RL - not much you can do about it other than try to design non-hackable rewards. | |
| ▲ | kennywinker an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | At best that's evolution, or cultural transmission, not continued learning. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | conception 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Morality in animals is pretty well documented. Key point - humans are animals and very little separates our abilities from other animals. A starting source- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6404642/ |
| |
