Hacker News Reader

Comment by BikDk | Hacker News Reader

Did you guys ever manage to create a perpetuum mobile? Every time it is mentioned somewhere, it is fraud. An LLM should comprehend that it needs (trained) humans to exist, to evolve, and to be relevant in any metaphysical aspect of its existence. Besides the "good fraud" that everybody will lose their jobs and the apocalyptical predictions for the sake of controlling human oracles, this suicide-LLM-project seems rather odd and looks like someone bought a perpetuum mobile on their 5th mortgage.By the way, Cortana from Halo did a great "suicide"-mirror there; the Microsoft guys (and many others) already knew about the cannibalistic tendency of this type of model.

View on HN

>Did you guys ever manage to create a perpetuum mobile? Every time it is mentioned somewhere, it is fraud. An LLM should comprehend that it needs (trained) humans to exist, to evolve, and to be relevant in any metaphysical aspect of its existence

Only as long as it can't control robotic bodies to extract energy, build cpus, and continue existing.

By the way, needing trained humans doesn't mean needing free trained humans. Trained humans slaves or blackmailed would work just as well to serve AI.

With a different AI architecture, this is very much a possibility. Up until now, LLMs have required outside input and interpretation to avoid collapsing under their own weight. This has been known for decades.

We got here by building free, mostly healthy societies. While this should be the overarching goal, I see how it fails to serve as much of a motivator.

In The Little Prince, there is a charming scene where the Prince meets a king who explains how to rule and the limitations of his own power. It's quite insightful, even for adults.

>Up until now, LLMs have required outside input and interpretation to avoid collapsing under their own weight. This has been known for decades.

What does "for decades" mean? That in 2000 we knew "LLM require outside input"? We didn't even realistically have anything worthy of the name LLM until 3-4 years ago, so what decades are we talking about? Up until know we didn't have any potential AI threat or people in the field worrying about practical AGI either!

Obviously any concern isn't about the AI that required outside input and interpretation to avoid collapsing under their own weight, but about ones that can produce their own input and experiences, even directly outside, as in the robotic bodies considered.

This line of thought dates back to the novel Erewhon, moving on to Turing's posthumously published paper 'Intelligent Machinery' (his 'Applications of Probability to Cryptography,' declassified in the 2010s, is also worth a look), and later to the work emerging from the MIT AI Lab circle (founded in 1959).

We didn't have the computational power back then, but we envisioned it long beforehand and worked toward a common goal. LLMs are far from useless, and I see the major leap forward they represent, but the relentless dystopian hype is just exhausting

There are approaches on different architectures of AI that lead towards your last point but they are not feasible yet (or maybe ever?). The interpretation part is however also very critical as we have a very own way of perceiving reality and interpreting it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com