Hacker News Reader

Comment by plastic3169 | Hacker News Reader

I’d say people are rapidly getting a feel on how these systems work and don’t work. Maybe we all agree soon that nothing serious should be controlled by this kind of AI (self-driving etc.)

Also we should have hardware restrictions to systems controlled by software to mitigate Therac-25 style accidents. Things can still go wrong but would be nice to have multiple levels of protection. Traditional software checking AI software, hardware checking traditional software.

I would love to give large language model control access to my spotify though. Especially if there is undo button. These systems now are great for toy use cases.

View on HN

> I’d say people are rapidly getting a feel on how these systems work and don’t work.

For the vast majority of people out of tech it's magic and they have absolutely no ideas of the limitations and implications of such tech. Even here on HN it's very obvious a lot of people don't understand even the basics of it

Well for me atleast it is magic. I understand roughly how it is supposed to work, but the output is too good based on that. Not in a million years does it feel ready for serious tasks though.

If I use reporters as proxy for layman. This has sparked countless news paper articles and majority of them I feel spend alot of time going through the caveats with the limits. Mostly the lack of logic and hallucinations.

My naive view is that people can judge the chat system using their interpersonal skills and actually get a feel of flakiness of the AI better than reading statistics on the subject.

I am optimistic people are becoming aware of the danger because we have seen a lot of recent and practical ways to remove protections in something like ChatGPT. I think a true AI will include the ability to change, like people do. The danger is other people changing you, radicalizing you.

An extension of this: Even if we avoid putting AI's in charge of critical infrastructure, I think it would be within the power of an AI to describe to someone how they would best attack an isolated system. It would certainly be possible for an AI to social engineer 1 or more targets, and to convince better-connected resources to act on its behalf.

Maybe we're about to see a renaissance in the studies of ethics and humanities, as it becomes ever more important to value life and right-from-wrong as we rush to AI armageddon. I promise you I'm not normally one of the doomsayers.

>Maybe we all agree soon that nothing serious should be controlled by this kind of AI (self-driving etc.)

I think there is essentially no chance of this happening, the cat is very much out of the bag.

It depends what you mean by "this kind of A.I."

Nobody is going to ask a chatbot trained on the text of the internet to drive a car. How would that even work? What mission critical A.I. do you see being trained by reddit conversations and dungeons and dragons manuals?

Social media moderation seems like a likely candidate for its actual use and also one where its failures could cause significant harm.

Um, sorry? How could you ever have a car driven via an LLM? I think the cat is very much staying in that bag.

surely they’re referring to using them as input for driving instructions

That doesn't even make sense.

it doesn’t make sense because you aren’t thinking about it correctly

Reply on news.ycombinator.com