openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
I mean “without human intervention or input”
There’s some fear mongering going around (pushed by AI companies to build hype) about AIs “going rogue” or “breaking containment” or other anthropomorphic language suggesting that AIs are capable of acting on their own.
These stories are all verifiably false though, the computer does not do things without being asked to by someone.
To be clear, I’m fully against AI. I just don’t like when I see people giving it credit for shit it cannot and did not do, or ascribe sentience to it, or some dumb shit like that.
I mean, that’s a matter of definition, isn’t it? If I ask a coding agent or whatever to implement something, and it circumvents the sandbox to do it, causing damage in the process, I’d be comfortable calling that “going rogue”. I have had that happen, without the damage part, luckily. I guess you can counter that I asked it to do the something, but then I don’t think we agree on the definitions.
I also think that if you’re against AI, you’d be doing yourself a disservice by not keeping up with the actual capabilities of the thing you oppose. The latest models are surprisingly good at e.g. coding, so basing your arguments on them being useless is not the most efficient strategy.
To also be clear, I don’t see any way AI disappears now, so I believe we’ll have to make the best of it (and in complete isolation, it is an utterly fascinating area of - to me - complete science fiction). Ideally development slowed down now so we could regroup and adapt, but I’m not too hopeful. The maximalist techbro endgame is so obviously a matter of national security for both China and the US, that there’s no way either of them will dare to wind it down, in case SV is actually right.
Not only did you ask it to do something, you left a path for it to escape the sandbox and encouraged it to do so.
Are you suggesting that because they instructed the computer to do something, without specifying how it should be done, and the computer followed its instructions , that’s somehow “going rogue?”, it was literally following instructions, that’s what computers do.
Yes, I understand that they are “good” (enough) at coding to sometimes put together something functional, that is literally what LLMs are designed to do. Coding languages are languages, ones without the subjectivity of human communications. They are easier to recognize patterns in, there are more rules. That’s literally the one task LLMs are good at, and they’re still not as good as an actual quality human programer.
Local AI models might never go away for coding, but they certainly won’t be shoehorned into everything without a good use case the way they are now.
AI is not a matter of national security, that is a lie being perpetrated by the captured media and politicians for the purpose of propping up their non-viable business models for long enough to squeeze all of the Juice they can out of investors (who are nearly dry at this point). That’s just additional techbro fear mongering. To distract you while they’re digging in our pockets.
I don’t think “computer follows instruction” is the right angle to look at this from. The instructions that the literal computer followed were a ton of matrix multiplication operations. The consequences of that arithmetic is easier to analyze as the emergent behaviour of the “gestalt” that produces the words that calls the tools etc. (This is also the reason that dismissing the entire field as “stochastic parrots” and “spicy autocomplete” misses the mark - if you want to predict the next word all the way through a counterexample to the Jacobian Conjecture, it’s hard to see how that can be done without a - for lack of a better word - mental model of the problem)
If you do any coding at all, I encourage you to look at what the latest models output. The average quality of work from a frontier model is amazing. Yes, there are bugs, but with adversarial auto-review it’s absolutely on par with a journeyman human programmer. The problem is of course that if you don’t hire junior programmers and let them do that work, you’ll never get new experts, and that’s a clear worry.
My point with the national security angle was that if you extrapolate just a little bit from current capabilities, you get to a point where an “AI gap” is a problem, regardless of the techbro claims. Keeping a close eye on that is firmly within the responsibility of a national government. Personally, I don’t see any good outcomes from an AI race like that, unless we actually hit a hard ceiling on further expansion. Fingers crossed.
China has 500 data centers, America has 5,000, there is no AI race.
I understand that you’re impresssed that it can sometimes slop together functional code. That does not make it intelligent or dangerous.
A year ago, that was my experience coding with AI as well. Sometime this spring that changed, especially when using coding agents, and lately (as I’ve stated elsewhere) the quality is on average pretty good. And contrary to what you’re implying, I’m not that easy to impress…
If there’s anything I hope you take from this exchange, it’s that the capabilities of AI shouldn’t be a part of your arguments against the current SV mania. The concentration of power, the disregard for communities and the environment, the stated goals of replacing human labour, all of that (and a lot more!) is enough, but it is what surrounds the technology itself. That technology is advancing, maybe feeding on itself, so an attack based on what it can do now can become outdated (and I’d argue that some of yours already are).
Fair point
I think the reason that my focus is on LLMs is because they keep showing up in annoying ways in my life, and I know I’m not the only one.
All of the evil actions you’re referencing were undertaken to prop up chat bots who cannot do any of the jobs (outside of some coding) that they are advertised as being able to perform.
To me the strength of the argument I’m trying to make is that they’re doing all of this damage in order to have something that’s effectively worthless. Perhaps I’m not doing a good job communicating what I’m attempting to communicate.
… also, I probably need to stop responding to all of these dumbasses and/or trolls who are constantly contradicting themselves in the first sentence of their assertions, lol
Good points as well. I guess my own view is coloured by having access to models that I find actually useful in my work. If my experience was only grating Claude prose and soulless AI “art” I’m not sure the tech itself would appeal all that much.
Probably that also blinds me a bit to what you argue, but I agree that the reasoning is sound from a point of view where all AI is useless. I’m just not sure that other areas won’t have the same OMG moment that coding had earlier this year.
Coding is like insanely well suited to LLMs by nature tho, that’s why it can actually do that.
Code is a language with stricter definitions and less verbosity than a spoken human language. Things only have one definition in code, one spelling, one syntax, etc.
There’s an element of artistry to human coding, but it’s more of a science than an art (compared to spoken human language anyhow). It’s easier to predict.
There are other promising “ai” technologies, like radiological image recognition, aren’t the same technology as LLMs, but the companies who make the LLMs constantly conflate their technology with that of more useful technologies in order to obfuscate their relative uselessness.
Even the coding models are being localized. There’s absolutely no reason to have a massive AI datacenter unless you’re making a shit LLM, and even then, the only reason to have that is to commit financial fraud essentially.
EDIT - I learned a bit more about “agentic” AI since you had mentioned it earlier, and what’s actually going on behind the scenes is wild.
So basically, an “agent” is a computer program that you give a task to. The agent then attempts to accomplish the task by engaging in a loop until the task is accomplished.
The structure of the loop is 3 steps. 1) Prompt an LLM - The agent asks an LLM what the first step in the task you asked it to accomplish would be. 2) The LLM provides a plausible answer, and the agent then attempts to carry out these instructions. 3) If the given instructions don’t work, the LLM appends the prompt to say “I tried step #1, it didn’t work, what should I try next?”. If the instructions work, the agent appends the prompt to say “I took this step and it worked, what’s the next step?”. Then the loop repeats.
So, this would work exceptionally well for code because the computer can Test and verify the code before continuing… but that’s just about the only use case for the technology
A good way to visualize this is to imagine yourself as an agent. Let’s say you need to do your laundry, that’s your task. So you ask the LLM what the first step is, and you do what it says no matter what. Then you go back, append the prompt, and prompt the AI again. This cycle repeats until either 1) you finish the laundry, or 2) you destroy the laundry, or burn down the house, or injure yourself blindly following the LLMs directions (this second outcome is the statistically probable one).
Would you do that? No, probably not. You can think, so you would know which instructions to attempt, and which to ignore. The Agent cannot think. The LLM cannot think. The agent strictly follows directions like any other computer program. The LLM is attempting to construct an answer that appears plausible, token by token. It doesn’t matter if it is plausible, or possible even, the LLM isn’t trying to give you the correct answer, it’s trying to give you an answer that appears correct.