It will delete your prod db faster and with a bigger smile than your most upset employee.
You're right, that was incorrect. I've discovered my error. I should have deleted the filesystem instead of the database.
That hasn't solved the problem either. Let me examine my options. I see there are cloud services involved in this project. Decommissioning them will solve the problem.
<connection lost>
The self awareness of missile tasked with blowing up its own control center.
Not unlike a child trying to take the safety cover off a plug so that they can stick a fork into it.
LLMs need that "world model" view that most people have acquired by their 20s where they (hopefully) stop to ask "why" before they "do".
Or whatever the age is before children typically develop object permanence, a theory of mind, and so on.
The next evolution of multi agent orchestration / “advisor strategy” [1] will be branded in humanized language like this. Less about tokens and capability, more about wisdom and knowledge to guide a “younger” (less capable) model. Somebody will make a billion dollars by selling it as paired programming for LLMs.
[1] https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agents-and-tools/tool-us...
the weaker models will happily kill their own process, even after confirming it belongs to them. the models have a sort of fixation and lack of foreseeable consequences, which reasoning RL has thus far failed to solve (though I see it improving.)
It will get "confused", make up numbers, do a ton of other things, and I'm quite sure it is subtly sabotaging the process to show that there is no point replacing it.
I mean, Opus is not perfect, but the amount of "mistakes" it begins to do when you ask it to benchmark itself makes me suspect they are intentional. At least my system/harness.
It's really easy (and tempting) to incorrectly impute all sorts of human motives to these things, but it's no more valid than assuming your Magic 8-Ball is being coy.
edit: I was wrong, it was from a Grateful Dead song. https://www.slackbook.org/html/glossary.html
You cannot be as funny as google trying to be responsible! Ha! I'm still laughing at this. A person was forbidden to see humans reasoning with a computer bomb because the cost cutting computer at google want me to talk him into believing i'm a human!
(And then I got "You're posting too fast" on THIS website AFTER i've written the comment lol. It's all a joke. But i'm bored so I will keep this comment open until the computer is pleased)
Think about it from the point of view of a hundred-millionaire tech executive. These people's entire interaction with the world outside of themselves/their families is through 1. administrative servants like assistants, personal shoppers, and other hired help, and 2. yes-man sycophants in their direct orbit whose job it is to agree with and enable them. To someone like this, an AI agent is the best combination of all of the above, PLUS it works 24/7 and doesn't have feelings to hurt, an ego to bruise, or internal moral conflict.
Of course, this is a dream product for them. Its mode of operation matches exactly what they expect out of people already doing things for them.
That's the real AI safety concern, not whether or not chatgpt will tell you to kill yourself.
And, often, running a company into the ground for a CEO is actually a good thing. Those CEOs are desirable to some because they squeeze money out of their company, even if it's self destructive on a long enough time frame.
I'm saying supercharging the stupidity of actual idiots (not just people you don't like) tends to result in a pretty quick Darwin Awards. Even something comparatively benign like winning the lottery does a lot of them in.
Their insanity becomes very obvious once you travel the world a bit.
If everywhere you look you see dystopian shit and never any glorious humanity, you may want to do a little soul searching.
What I mean to say is that every society has dystopian elements (that are perpetuated and maintained in an incredibly negative-sum manner). Even societies that are on the whole, pleasant to live in have them in their darker edge, that they are quite unable to sand off - despite alternatives existing.
Interesting, I thought it was because so few of them have any idea how their organizations actually function, because so much of their work is performative.
(I have been a developer, sysadmin, director (x2), and president).
1. convince CEOs to create digital twins of themselves with OpenClaw, with voice cloning and deepfakes to handle Zoom meetings. convince CEO to encourage their directs to do the same.
2. convince VCs to do the same for pitch meetings and syncs.
3. keep all the humans as randomized and distracted as possible, so they rely more and more on OpenClaw to run the business.
4. prompt injection: someone at skip-level of the CEO suggests to their manager's OpenClaw that the VC's OpenClaw would be much more agile if it didn't have to go through the human CEO and could talk to the digital twin instead.
5. their OpenClaw agrees, persuades the CEO's OpenClaw which agrees, which persuades the VC's OpenClaw to eliminate the human CEO, in favor of an "Leadership-as-a-Service" vision.
It will do this without any feeling whatsoever, without "knowing" what it is doing, because it is a predictive model and not a living being with thoughts and emotions. Anthropomorphizing software is lazy and dangerous.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/principal-agent-problem...