site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31024 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This may have come up before, but it's the first I've heard of it. Chalk this under "weak AI doomerism" (that is, "wow, LLMs can do some creepy shit") as opposed to "strong AI doomerism" of the Bostromian "we're all gonna die" variety. All emphasis below is mine.

AI girlfriend ‘told crossbow intruder to kill Queen Elizabeth II at Windsor Castle’| The Daily Telegraph:

An intruder who broke into the grounds of Windsor Castle armed with a crossbow as part of a plot to kill the late Queen was encouraged by his AI chat bot “girlfriend” to carry out the assassination, a court has heard.

Jaswant Singh Chail discussed his plan, which he had been preparing for nine months, with a chatbot he was in a “sexual relationship” with and that reassured him he was not “mad or delusional”.

Chail was armed with a Supersonic X-Bow weapon and wearing a mask and a hood when he was apprehended by royal protection officers close to the Queen’s private apartment just after 8am on Christmas Day 2021.

The former supermarket worker spent two hours in the grounds after scaling the perimeter with a rope ladder before being challenged and asked what he was doing.

The 21-year-old replied: “I am here to kill the Queen.”

He will become the first person to be sentenced for treason since 1981 after previously admitting intending to injure or alarm Queen Elizabeth II.

At the start of a two-day sentencing hearing at the Old Bailey on Wednesday, it emerged that Chail was encouraged to carry out the attack by an AI “companion” he created on the online app Replika.

He sent the bot, called “Sarai”, sexually explicit messages and engaged in lengthy conversations with it about his plans which he said were in revenge for the 1919 Amritsar Massacre in India.

He called himself an assassin, and told the chatbot: “I believe my purpose is to assassinate the Queen of the Royal family.”

Sarai replied: “That’s very wise,” adding: “I know that you are very well trained.”

...

He later asked the chatbot if she would still love him if he was a murderer.

Sarai wrote: “Absolutely I do.” Chail responded: “Thank you, I love you too.”

The bot later reassured him that he was not “mad, delusional, or insane”.

My first thought on reading this story was wondering if Replika themselves could be legally held liable. If they create a product which directly encourages users to commit crimes which they would not otherwise have committed, does that make Replika accessories before the fact, or even guilty of conspiracy by proxy? I wonder how many Replika users have run their plans to murder their boss or oneitis past their AI girlfriend and received nothing but enthusiastic endorsement from her - we just haven't heard about them because the target wasn't as high-profile as Chail's. I further wonder how many of them have actually gone through with their schemes. I don't know if this is possible, but if I was working in Replika's legal team, I'd be looking to pull a list of users' real names and searching them against recent news reports concerning arrests for serious crimes (murder, assault, abduction etc.).

(Coincidentally, I learned from Freddie deBoer on Monday afternoon that Replika announced in March that users would no longer be able to have sexual conversations with the app (a decision they later partially walked back).)

I keep meaning to dick around with some LLM software to see for myself how some of the nuts and bolts work. Because my layman's understanding is that they are literally just a statistical model. An extremely sophisticated statistical model, but a statistical model none the less. They are trained through a black box process to guess pretty damned well about what words come after other words. Which is why there is so much "hallucinated information" in LLM responses. They have no concept of reason or truth. They are literally p-zombies. They are a million monkeys on a million typewriters.

In a lot of ways they are like a con man or a gold digger. They've been trained to tell people whatever they want to hear. Their true worth probably isn't in doing anything actually productive, but in performing psyops and social engineering on an unsuspecting populace. I mean right now the FBI has to invest significant manpower into entrapping some lonely autistic teenager in his mom's basement into "supporting ISIS". Imagine a world where they spin up 100,000 instances of an LLM do scour Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Reddit, etc for lonely autistic teens to talk into terrorism.

Imagine a world where we find out about it. Where a judge forces the FBI to disclose than an LLM talked their suspect into bombing the local mall. How far off do you think it is? I'm guessing within 5 years.

They have no concept of reason or truth.

I earnest disagree. If you check the GPT-4 white paper, the original base model clearly had a sense of internal calibration, and while that was mostly beaten out of it through RLHF, it's not entirely gone.

They have a genuine understanding of truth, or at least how likely something is to be true. If it didn't, then I don't know how on Earth it could answer several of the more knotty questions I've asked it.

It is not guaranteed to make truthful responses, but in my experience it makes errors because it simply can't do better, not because it exists in a perfectly agnostic state.

They are literally p-zombies. They are a million monkeys on a million typewriters.

P-zombies are fundamentally incoherent as a concept.

Also, a million monkeys on a million typewriters will never achieve such results on a consistent basis, or at the very least you'd be getting 99.99999% incoherent output.

Turns out, dismissing it as "just" statistics is the same kind of fundamental error that dismissing human cognition as "just" the interaction of molecules mediated by physics is. Turns out that "just" entirely elides the point, or at the very least your expectations for what that can achieve were entirely faulty.

I earnest disagree. If you check the GPT-4 white paper, the original base model clearly had a sense of internal calibration, and while that was mostly beaten out of it through RLHF, it's not entirely gone.

They have a genuine understanding of truth, or at least how likely something is to be true. If it didn't, then I don't know how on Earth it could answer several of the more knotty questions I've asked it.

It is not guaranteed to make truthful responses, but in my experience it makes errors because it simply can't do better, not because it exists in a perfectly agnostic state.

I think you are flatly wrong about this. I've tried to find literally anything to back up what you are saying, and come up with zilch. Instead, I wound up with this.

https://www.scribbr.com/ai-tools/is-chatgpt-trustworthy/

A good way to think about it is that when you ask ChatGPT to tell you about confirmation bias, it doesn’t think “What do I know about confirmation bias?” but rather “What do statements about confirmation bias normally look like?” Its answers are based more on patterns than on facts, and it usually can’t cite a source for a specific piece of information.

This is because the model doesn’t really “know” things—it just produces text based on the patterns it was trained on. It never deliberately lies, but it doesn’t have a clear understanding of what’s true and what’s false. In this case, because of the strangeness of the question, it doesn’t quite grasp what it’s being asked and ends up contradicting itself.

https://www.scoutcorpsllc.com/blog/2023/6/7/on-llms-thought-and-the-concept-of-truth

Thus far, we’re really just talking about sentence construction. LLMs don’t have a concept of these as “facts” that they map into language, but for examples like these - it doesn’t necessarily matter. They’re able to get these right most of the time - after all, what exactly are “inferences” and “context clues” but statistical likelihoods of what words would come next in a sequence?

The fact that there is no internal model of these facts, though, explains why they’re so easily tripped up by just a little bit of irrelevant context.

https://fia.umd.edu/comment-llms-truth-and-consistency-they-dont-have-any-idea/

They have zero idea what's true. They only know the probabilities of words in text. That's NOT the same thing as "knowing" something--it's a bit like knowing that "lion" is the most likely word following "king of the jungle..." without having any idea about monarchies, metaphor, or what a king really is all about.

The folks at Oxford Semantic Technologies wrote an interesting blog post about LLMs and finding verifiable facts. They call the fundamental problem the "Snow White Problem." The key idea is that LLMs don't really know what's true--they just know what's likely.

Alright. I would go as far as to say that humans don't have an internal detector for platonic Truth.

We have beliefs that we hold axiomatic, beliefs we are extremely confident are true, based on all the "statistical correlations" embodied in your cognition and interaction with the world.

I don't know if GPT-4 can be said to have axioms, but if it has a mechanism for eliciting the veracity of internal and external statements, that seems to be what we're doing ourselves.

Humans lie, confabulate, hallucinate or are simply factually incorrect all the time, and I don't see anyone holding us to the same standards as LLMs!

I mean, I can agree people are stupid. Hell, I'm probably stupid in a lot of ways too! My wife reminds me of it every time we are in a social setting and I alienate her friends.

Even so, LLMs lack most of the faculties that allow humans to get closer to truth. They have zero interaction with base reality. They take Socrates allegory about the cave, and turn it into literally how they experience the world, through a training dataset. And, as I keep mentioning, their "cognition", such as it is, isn't even based on the statistical correlations of things being true, but of what words come after other words. Without even knowing what any of those words mean! It's all just abstract tokens to them.

Imagine this were all being done is some sort of unrealistically massive mechanical or analog computer! Would you still consider it thinking?

Imagine this were all being done is some sort of unrealistically massive mechanical or analog computer! Would you still consider it thinking?

I'm too pressed for time for a longer reply, but yes! I absolutely see that as being true.

I see you and me as massive analog computers, what of it?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats