I'm just saying. :) Guardrails nowadays don't really focus on dangers (it's hard to see how an image generator could produce dangers!) so much as enforcing public societal norms.
All of these are things that have already happened. These all were previously possible of course but now they are trivially scalable.
> chatbots that replace real-time human customer service but have none of the agency
That seems good for society, even though it's bad for people employed in that specific job.
Why?
It inserts yet another layer of crap you have to fight through before you can actually get anything done with a company. The avoidance of genuine customer service has become an artform by many companies and corporations, its demise surely should be lamented. A chatbot is just another in the arsenal of weapons designed to confuse, put-off and delay the cost of having to actually provide a decent service to you customers, which should be a basic responsibility of any public-facing company.
1. It's not "an extra layer", at most it's a replacement for the existing thing you're lamenting, in the businesses you're already objecting to.
2. The businesses which use this tool at its best, can glue the LLM to their documentation[0], and once that's done, each extra user gets "really good even though it's not perfect" customer support at negligible marginal cost to the company, rather than the current affordable option of "ask your fellow users on our subreddit or discord channel, or read our FAQ".
[0] a variety of ways — RAG is a popular meme now, but I assume it's going to be like MapReduce a decade ago, where everyone copies the tech giants without understanding the giant's reasons or scale
If I'm unlucky it'll just be another stage in the mobius-support-strip that directs me from support web page to chatbot to FAQ and back to the webpage.
The businesses which use this tool best will be the ones that manage to lay off the most support staff and cut the most cost. Sad as that is for the staff, that's not my gripe. My gripe is that it's just going to get even harder to reach a real actual person who is able to take a real actual action, because providing support is secondary to controlling costs for most companies these days.
Take for example the pension company I called recently to change an address - their support page says to talk to their bot, which then says to call a number, which picks up, says please go to your online account page to complete this action and then hangs up... an action which the account page explicitly says cannot be completed online because I'm overseas, so please talk to the bot, or you can call the number. In the end I had to call an office number I found through google and be transferred between departments.
An LLM is not going to help with that, it's just going to make the process longer and more frustrating, because the aim is not to resolve problems, it's to stop people taking the time of a human even when they need to, because that costs money.
Essentially businesses have (knowingly or otherwise) dropped their ability to provide meaningful customer support.
Even quite a lot of new chatbots are still in that paradigm, and… well, given the recent news about chatbot output being legally binding, it's precisely the extra agency of LLMs over both normal bots and humans following scripts that makes them both interestingly useful and potentially dangerous: https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20240222-air-canada-chatb...
If you chat to an LLM and you get a picture back, which some support, the image generator and the language model might as well be the same thing to all users, even if there's an important technical difference for developers.
It's a distinction that does not matter, as the question still has to be answered for the other modality. Do guns kill people, or do bad guys use guns to kill people? Does a fall kill you, or is it the sudden deceleration at the end? Lab leak or wet market? There's a technical difference, some people care, but the actionable is identical and doesn't matter unless it's your job to implement a specific part of the solution.
So, do you want future LLMs to be restricted, or unlimited? And remember, to prevent this outcome you have to predict model capabilities in advance, including "tricks" like prompting them to "think carefully, step by step".
To verify the LLM's code, because the LLM is cheaper than a human.
And there's a lot of live code already out there.
And people are only begrudgingly following even existing recommendations for code quality.
I code because I'm good at it, enjoy it, and it pays well.
I recommend against 3rd party libraries because they give me responsibility without authority — I'd own the problem without the means to fix it.
Despite this, they're a near-universal in our industry.
> If LLM hackers are rampant as you fear then people will respond by telling their code writing LLMs to get their shit together and check the code for vulnerabilities.
Eventually.
But that doesn't help with the existing deployed code — and even if it did, this is a situation where, when the capability is invented, attack capability is likely to spread much faster than the ability of businesses to catch up with defence.
Even just one zero-day can be bad, this… would probably be "many" almost simultaneously. (I'd be surprised if it was "all", regardless of how good the AI was).
Existing vulnerable code will be vulnerable, yes. We already live in a reality in which script kiddies trivially attack old outdated systems. This is the status quo, the addition of hacking LLMs changes little. Insofar as more systems are broken, that will increase the pressure to update those systems.
Edit: I misread that bit as "you code" not "your code".
But "your code because you own it", while a sound position, is a position violated in practice all the time, and not only because of my example of 3rd party libraries.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/lawyer-who-cited...
They are held responsible for being very badly wrong about what the tools can do. I expect more of this.
> You proposed a future in which every skiddy has a hacking LLM and they're using it to attack tons of stuff written by LLMs. If hacking LLMs and code writing LLMs both proliferate then the obvious resolution is for the code writing LLMs to employ hacking LLMs in verifying their outputs.
And it'll be a long road, getting to there from here. The view at the top of a mountain may be great or terrible, but either way climbing it is treacherous. Metaphor applies.
> Existing vulnerable code will be vulnerable, yes. We already live in a reality in which script kiddies trivially attack old outdated systems. This is the status quo, the addition of hacking LLMs changes little. Insofar as more systems are broken, that will increase the pressure to update those systems.
Yup, and that status quo gets headlines like this: https://tricare.mil/GettingCare/VirtualHealth/SecurePatientP...
I assume this must have killed at least one person by now. When you get too much pressure in a mechanical system, it breaks. I'd like our society to use this pressure constructively to make a better world, but… well, look at it. We've not designed our world with a security mindset, we've designed it with "common sense" intuitions, and our institutions are still struggling with the implications of the internet let alone AI, so I have good reason to expect the metaphorical "pressure" here will act like the literal pressure caused by a hand grenade in a bathtub.
Yes, indeed.
> and there will be very few remaining vulnerabilities for the black hat LLMs to exploit.
Sadly, this does not follow. Automated vulnerability scanners already exist, how many people use them to harden their own code? https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/gambleforce-websi...
- propaganda and fake news
- deep fakes
- slander
- porn (revenge and child)
- spam
- scams
- intelectual property theft
The list goes on.
And for quite a few of those use cases I'd want some guard rails even for a fully on-premise model.
EDIT: Can't reply but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. AI is used to create these things, yes. But the question was LLMs which I reiterated. They are not equal. Please read up on this stuff before forming judgements or confidently stating incorrect opinions that other people, who also have no idea what they're talking about, will parrot.
And the grandparent of the grandparent of your comment specifically named "Stable Diffusion": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39612886
And text-based porn is still porn.
And it's a distinction without a difference that ChatGPT Pro doesn't strictly create images itself but instead forwards the request to DALL•E.
And the question of guard rails relevant to all AI, not just LLMs.
If y'all want to rant and fear monger about any AI technology, including tech that has existed for years (deepfakes existed well before LLMs were mainstream), do that in a different thread. Don't just force every conversation to be about whatever your mind wants to rant about.
That said, arguing with you people is pointless. You don't even seem to think.
Then we lost repeatedly at almost every other step back to the root, because it switched between those two loads of times.
The change to LLMs was itself one such shift.
> No, that doesn't mean "LLMs can generate images" aside from triggering some thing to happen
The aside is important.
> It's not pedantic or unreasonable to divide the two.
It is unreasonable on the question of "guardrails, good or bad?"
It is unreasonable on the question of "can it cause harm?"
It's not unreasonable if you are building one.
> If y'all want to rant and fear monger about any AI technology, including tech that has existed for years (deepfakes existed well before LLMs were mainstream)
And caused problems for years.
> That said, arguing with you people is pointless. You don't even seem to think.
Communication isn't a single-player game, I can't make you understand something you're actively unwilling to accept, like the idea that tools enable people to do more, for good and ill, and AI is such a tool.
Perhaps you should spend less time insulting people on the internet you don't understand. Go for a walk or something. Eat a Snickers, take a nap. Come back when you're less cranky.
You can say "fact" all you want but that doesn't make you correct lol
Not so. I have it at home, I make nice wholesome pictures of raccoons and tigers sitting down for Christmas dinner etc., but I also see stories like this and hope they're ineffective: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68440150
Those AI generated photos are from a Twitter/X parody account @Trump_History45 , not from the Trump campaign as the BBC mistakenly (or misleadingly) claim.
They specifically said who they came from, and that it wasn't the Trump campaign. They even had a photo of one of the creators, whom they interviewed in that specific piece I linked to, and tried to get interviews with others.
Headline: "Trump supporters target black voters with faked AI images"
@Trump_History45 does appear to be a Trump supporter. However, he is also a parody account and states as such on his account.
The BBC article goes full-on with the implication that the AI images were produced with the intent to target black voters. The BBC is expert at "lying by omission"; that is, presenting a version of the truth which is ultimately misleading because they do not present the full facts.
The BBC article itself leads a reader to believe that @Trump_History45 created those AI images with the aim of misleading black voters and thus to garner support from black voters in favour of Trump.
Nowhere in that BBC article is the word "parody" mentioned, nor any examination of any of the other AI images @Trump_History45 has produced. If they had, and had fairly represented that @Trump_History45 X account, then the article would have turned out completely different;
"Trump Supporter Produces Parody AI Images of Trump" does not have the same effect which the BBC wanted it to have.
I won't deny the BBC has ofteb very biased reporting for a publically funded source.
I won't deny the BBC has very biased reporting for a publically funded source.
I won't deny the BBC has often very biased reporting for a publically funded source.