I lost it at the confession. The ai has no knowledge of what it did. You are feeding in your context and it is making up a (sycophantic) plausible explanation based on the chat history. Makes me wonder if this person should have production access in the first place.
Yes, ask why it deleted data when it didn’t do anything of the sort and it will still output similar text. You asked it to confess and explain, so it will do just that regardless of whether it fits.
Of course, that’s how all of these agents work. At best they’re a bunch of prompts tied together with scripts to perform actions. At worst they’re just interacting directly with software without any scripts or sandboxing.
Idk what you’re talking about mate. Nobody is claiming AGI apart from morons. It’s genuinely useful technology with correct implementation. It just also happens to be a Ponzi scheme.
You’re free to disagree, but all the tools say otherwise. Hell even the widely lauded Claude Code is just that, we know for sure since the source leaked.
“Correlates”? As in: “It gives you the answer it best correlates with your prompts/context.” Feels somewhat right both in the sense of AI as tensor-based word-select autocomplete and as a “lower-level” process than genuine thought, one which turns incongruent inputs (“I’m an AI” and “I just deleted prod+backup”) into meaningless output (“The AI is sorry”) that might look OK at a distance.
Based on the evidence, I think I’m a bit more of a simpleton who puts in a good effort at the start but loses steam partway through. I guess thanks for the support though.
Most importantly, the ability to learn. We’re all just a series of very complex chemical reactions, but we do a lot more than just listening and speaking.
exactly. the whole point of these things is that they MUST provide you a solution. Any solution. doesn’t have to be accurate, doesn’t have to work, can be completely made up as long as it’s a solution and as long as it’s provided quickly. I’ve seen people feed into the prompts stuff like “don’t hallucinate” or “verify all this online before proceeding” etc and it’s not going to do any of that. it might TELL you it’s doing that but it won’t.
Claude is notorious for guessing, not verifying, and providing the quickest possible solution. Unlike GPT which will fluff all it’s solutions to essentially waste your time and eat up more tokens, Claude just wants your problem out the door so you can feed it another problem ASAP.
If you use Claude for anything in your daily work you might as well just have a magic 8ball sitting on your desk. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper and provides about the same quality.
I kind of like this, with some modification. It’s a magic 8 ball of Stack Overflow answers. It’ll try to find the one you need. If it’s too hard to find that or if it doesn’t exist, it’s just gonna find the one that sounds good.
I love this idea. On shit, the load balancer isn’t responding, time to shake the Magic Stack Overflow Ball ™! The result is “signs point to power cycling the server”.
The program can’t pretend any more than it can tell truth. It’s all just impressive regurgitation. Querying it as to why it “chose” to take any action is about as useful as interrogating a boulder on why it “chose” to roll through a house.
They’re not even pretending. The algorithm says the most likely response to “you fucked up” is “I’m sorry”, so that’s what it prints. There’s zero psychological simulation going on, only statistical text generation.
So this happens and the FAA says “we’re gonna have this shit help ATCs manage flights! WHO’S EXCITED!”
I lost it at the confession. The ai has no knowledge of what it did. You are feeding in your context and it is making up a (sycophantic) plausible explanation based on the chat history. Makes me wonder if this person should have production access in the first place.
Yes, ask why it deleted data when it didn’t do anything of the sort and it will still output similar text. You asked it to confess and explain, so it will do just that regardless of whether it fits.
It’s not like the thing is going to learn from its mistake. But cool, waste those tokens to have it explain that if fucked up after it fucks up lol.
The way it communicates suggests to me it’s got some ‘prompt engineer bro’ garbage system prompt going on there.
Of course, that’s how all of these agents work. At best they’re a bunch of prompts tied together with scripts to perform actions. At worst they’re just interacting directly with software without any scripts or sandboxing.
There is no AI.
I’ll disagree with you there but ok.
They put ‘for entertainment purposes only’ on a product that’s actually AGI?
Idk what you’re talking about mate. Nobody is claiming AGI apart from morons. It’s genuinely useful technology with correct implementation. It just also happens to be a Ponzi scheme.
You’re free to disagree, but all the tools say otherwise. Hell even the widely lauded Claude Code is just that, we know for sure since the source leaked.
yeah, it gives you the answer it thinks you want based on your prompts.
I’d be interested to see what prompts they used to, uh, prompt this response.
I’m not attacking you but we really need to figure out how we use language to accurately describe what these programs are doing.
“Correlates”? As in: “It gives you the answer it best correlates with your prompts/context.” Feels somewhat right both in the sense of AI as tensor-based word-select autocomplete and as a “lower-level” process than genuine thought, one which turns incongruent inputs (“I’m an AI” and “I just deleted prod+backup”) into meaningless output (“The AI is sorry”) that might look OK at a distance.
They are outputting a highly likely sequence of words that fit the type of output from their training data that matches the input.
They are fancy autocomplete.
Oh, I know. My comment was more about how we tend to anthropomorphize this stuff and give these models traits they don’t possess.
… and what are you?
Based on the evidence, I think I’m a bit more of a simpleton who puts in a good effort at the start but loses steam partway through. I guess thanks for the support though.
A human with my own motivations and complex biological systems that including reasoning and the ability to think critically.
Most importantly, the ability to learn. We’re all just a series of very complex chemical reactions, but we do a lot more than just listening and speaking.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00752
Probably something like “Please bro!!! WHY DID YOU DO THIS ??!! 😭😭”
exactly. the whole point of these things is that they MUST provide you a solution. Any solution. doesn’t have to be accurate, doesn’t have to work, can be completely made up as long as it’s a solution and as long as it’s provided quickly. I’ve seen people feed into the prompts stuff like “don’t hallucinate” or “verify all this online before proceeding” etc and it’s not going to do any of that. it might TELL you it’s doing that but it won’t.
Claude is notorious for guessing, not verifying, and providing the quickest possible solution. Unlike GPT which will fluff all it’s solutions to essentially waste your time and eat up more tokens, Claude just wants your problem out the door so you can feed it another problem ASAP.
If you use Claude for anything in your daily work you might as well just have a magic 8ball sitting on your desk. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper and provides about the same quality.
I kind of like this, with some modification. It’s a magic 8 ball of Stack Overflow answers. It’ll try to find the one you need. If it’s too hard to find that or if it doesn’t exist, it’s just gonna find the one that sounds good.
I love this idea. On shit, the load balancer isn’t responding, time to shake the Magic Stack Overflow Ball ™! The result is “signs point to power cycling the server”.
It’s so weird how these chatbots always pretend they learnt something after they fuck up.
They literally can’t.
The program can’t pretend any more than it can tell truth. It’s all just impressive regurgitation. Querying it as to why it “chose” to take any action is about as useful as interrogating a boulder on why it “chose” to roll through a house.
I mean, they probably do. until it gets purged from the context window. then it just yolos again
the next ingestion cycle will probably pick it up but how do we know it’ll use the information in any relevant way 😶
Only because we are still using vanilla LLMs instead of MAMBA or JEPA
Of course. If you shot your foot with a gun, the solution is surely a bigger gun.
They’re not even pretending. The algorithm says the most likely response to “you fucked up” is “I’m sorry”, so that’s what it prints. There’s zero psychological simulation going on, only statistical text generation.
I actually didn’t believe you but it’s literally true. First post, immediate apology.