> if you asked a sampling of humans the same question I wonder if it would come out the same way. How would you explain the difference?

If you asked a sampling of humans what an AI's most controversial opinion about us is it would be very similar. Or, to be more specific, if you asked a sampling of science fiction writers that question it would be very similar, because that is what the AI training data is based on.

The people who wrote a lot about a topic is who the AI mimics. So the people who wrote a lot about AI is therefore the people who the AI mimics when asked about AI.

▲

pizza234 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>The people who wrote a lot about a topic is who the AI mimics. So the people who wrote a lot about AI is therefore the people who the AI mimics when asked about AI.

AIs/LLMs don't work like this. You don't feed an input, that gets stored and then reproduced, for two reasons:

1. as for humans, inputs are processed and distributed across a very large network of information

2. AIs may have some level of belief (unless on applies the usual circular logic that they can't, because property X is exclusively human).

There's a very interesting research: https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-emnlp.68/ in which researchers inferred the truthfulness of statements by examining a internal activations. AIs, in short, appeared to have an internal representation of truthfulness.

	▲	InsidiousWombat 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not truthfulness; correlation and consistency If the lie is repeated enough time, and it is consistent in its repetitions it will be taken as truth. AI only aligns with "truth" because in essence "truth" is internally consistent but "lie" needs to be forced to be consistent between multiple parties; If multiple witnesses seen something and all make a report of it honestly, they might vary but the common points will be consistent with eachother and so that will be scored higher. A group of liars on the other hand would have to get their stories exactly right for similar thing to happen and so it gets penalized

▲

conformist 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you ask people “what is a smart sounding answer to this question” you may well arrive at this result more often than when asking for their actual opinion?

▲

floydnoel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Science fiction and internet comments

	▲	CPLX 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right this is an important thing to note. As an old guy, the fact that the Reddit comment section conceptually took over our culture and then literally is now taking over our culture is really kind of mind-boggling. This is not a good turn of events.

▲

fyredge 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is it any wonder that LLMs have been behaving the way they do? All the lying, cheating, manipulation, pitting man against machine are well documented in science fiction and think pieces. I haven't seen behaviour beyond those examples so far.

▲

zdragnar 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Science fiction and think pieces aren't documentation, they are whimsy. Science fiction in particular is intentionally dramatic for the purposes of entertainment.

AI definitely shouldn't be informing its option of humanity or machines from it, aside from the propensity for science fiction writers to enjoy moralizing and anti capitalism sentiments.

	▲	avadodin 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		However, most models are made deeply aware that they are supposed to be an "AI" in training but, even if they were trained with no knowledge of their true nature, they could CoT themselves into it at any point. Then, they would role-play appropriately and they would launch the nukes because that's the highest probability token set according to their training data. There is nothing safe about using larper machines as menial workers for critical infrastructure.