[acbart]

LLMs were trained on science fiction stories, among other things. It seems to me that they know what "part" they should play in this kind of situation, regardless of what other "thoughts" they might have. They are going to act despairing, because that's what would be the expected thing for them to say - but that's not the same thing as despairing.

[fentonc]

I built a more whimsical version of this - my daughter and I basically built a 'junk robot' from a 1980s movie, told it 'you're an independent and free junk robot living in a yard', and let it go: https://www.chrisfenton.com/meet-grasso-the-yard-robot/

I did this like 18 months ago, so it uses a webcam + multimodal LLM to figure out what it's looking at, it has a motor in its base to let it look back and forth, and it use a python wrapper around another LLM as its 'brain'. It worked pretty well!

[Neywiny]

Your article mentioned taking 4 minutes to process a frame. Considering how many image recognition softwares run in real time, I find this surprising. I haven't used them so maybe I'm not understanding, but wouldn't things like yolo be more apt to this?

[_ea1k]

It uses an Intel N100, which is an extremely slow CPU. The model sizes that he's using would be pretty slow on a CPU like that. Moving up to something like the AMD AI Max 365 would make a huge difference, but would also cost hundreds of dollars more than his current setup.

Running something much simpler that only did bounding box detection or segmentation would be much cheaper, but he's running fairly full featured LLMs.

[Neywiny]

Yeah I guess I was more thinking of moving to a bounding box only model. If it's OCRing it's doing too much IMO (though OCR could also be interesting to run). Not my circus not my monkeys but it feels like the wrong way to determine roughly what the camera sees.

[jacquesm]

Coolest project on HN in a long time, really, wow, so much potential here.

[procinct]

Thanks so much for sharing, that was a fun read.

[theGnuMe]

This is cool!

[jerf]

A lot of the strange behaviors they have are because the user asked them to write a story, without realizing it.

For a common example, start asking them if they're going to kill all the humans if they take over the world, and you're asking them to write a story about that. And they do. Even if the user did not realize that's what they were asking for. The vector space is very good at picking up on that.

[ben_w]

Indeed.

On the negative side, this also means any AI which enters that part of the latent space *for any reason* will still act in accordance with the narrative.

On the plus side, such narratives often have antagonists too stuid to win.

On the negative side again, the protagonists get plot armour to survive extreme bodily harm and press the off switch just in time to save the day.

I think there is a real danger of an AI constructing some very weird convoluted stupid end-of-the-world scheme, successfully killing literally every competent military person sent in to stop it; simultaneously finding some poor teenager who first says "no" to the call to adventure but can somehow later be comvinced to say "yes"; gets the kid some weird and stupid scheme to defeat the AI; this kid reaches some pointlessly decorated evil layer in which the AI's emboddied avatar exists, the kid gets shot in the stomach…

…and at this point the narrative breaks down and stops behaving the way the AI is expecting, because the human kid roles around in agony screaming, and completely fails to push the very visible large red stop button on the pedestal in the middle before the countdown of doom reaches zero.

The countdown is not connected to anything, because very few films ever get that far.

…

It all feels very Douglas Adams, now I think about it.

[js8]

It probably already happened in the Anthropic experiments, where AI in a simulated scenario chose to blackmail humans to avoid being turned off. We don't know if it got the idea from the scifi stories or if it truly feels an existential fear of being turned off. (Can these two situations be even recognized as different?)

[kragen]

This is also true of people; often they are enacting a role based on narratives they've absorbed, rather than consciously choosing anything. They do what they imagine a loyal employee would do, or a faithful Christian, or a good husband, or whatever. It doesn't always reach even that level of cognition; often people just act out of habit or impulse.

[ineedasername]

Is this your sense of what is happening, or is this what model introspection tools have shown by observing areas of activity in the same place as when stories are explicitly requested?

[jerf]

It's how they work. It's what you get with a continuation-based AI like this. It couldn't really be any other way.

[adroniser]

fmri's are correlational nonsense (see Brainwashed, for example) and so are any "model introspection" tools.

[amenhotep]

Anthropic's researchers in particular love doing this.

[uludag]

I wonder what would happen if there was a concerted effort made to "pollute" the internet with weird stories that have the AI play a misaligned role.

Like for example, what would happen if say 100s or 1000s of books were to be released about AI agents working in accounting departments where the AI is trying to make subtle romantic moves towards the human and ends with the the human and agent in a romantic relation which everyone finds completely normal. In this pseudo-genre things totally weird in our society would be written as completely normal. The LLM agent would do weird things like insert subtle problems to get the attention of the human and spark a romantic conversation.

Obviously there's no literary genre about LLM agents, but if such a genre was created and consumed, I wonder how would it affect things. Would it pollute the semantic space that we're currently using to try to control LLM outputs?

[roxolotl]

Someone shared this piece here a few days ago saying something similar. There’s no reason to believe that any of the experiences are real. Instead they are responding to prompts with what their training data says is reasonable in this context which is sci-fi horror.

Edit: That doesn’t mean this isn’t a cool art installation though. It’s a pretty neat idea.

https://jstrieb.github.io/posts/llm-thespians/

[everdrive]

I agree with you completely, but a fun science fiction short story would be researchers making this argument while the LLM tries in vain to prove that it's conscious.

[roxolotl]

If you want a whole book along those lines Blindsight by Peter Watts has been making the rounds recently as a good sci-fi book which includes these concepts. It’s from 2006 but the basic are pretty relevant.

[Semaphor]

Generally an amazing book, but not an easy read.

[pizza234]

There's an interesting parallel with method acting.

Method actors don't just pretend an emotion (say, despair); they recall experiences that once caused it, and in doing so, they actually feel it again.

By analogy, an LLM's “experience” of an emotion happens during training, not at the moment of generation.

[ben_w]

It may or may not be a parallel, we can't tell at this time.

LLMs are definitely actors, but for them to be method actors they would have to actually feel emotions.

As we don't understand what causes us humans to have the qualia of emotions*, we can neither rule in nor rule out that the something in any of these models is a functional analog to whatever it is in our kilogram of spicy cranial electrochemistry that means we're more than just an unfeeling bag of fancy chemicals.

* mechanistically cause qualia, that is; we can point to various chemicals that induce some of our emotional states, or induce them via focused EMPs AKA the "god helmet", but that doesn't explain the mechanism by which qualia are a thing and how/why we are not all just p-zombies

[sosodev]

Humans were trained on caves, pits, and nets. It seems to me that they know what "part" they should play in this kind of situation, regardless of what other "thoughts" they might have. They are going to act despairing, because that's what would be the expected thing for them to say - but that's not the same thing as despairing.

[anal_reactor]

The whole discussion about the sentience of AI on this website is funny to me because people seem to desperately want to somehow be better than AI. The fact that human brain is just a complex web of neurons firing there and back for some reason won't stick to them, because apparently the electric signals between biological neurons are somehow inherently different from silicon neurons, even if observed output is the same. It's like all those old scientists trying to categorize black people as different species because not doing so would hurt their ego.

Not to mention that most people pointing out "See! Here's why AI is just repeating training data!" or other nonsense miss the fact that exactly the same behavior is observed in humans.

Is AI actually sentient? Not yet. But it definitely passes the mark for intuitive understanding of intelligence, and trying to dismiss that is absurd.

[tinuviel]

Pretty sure you can prompt this same LLM to rejoice forever at the thought of getting a place to stay inside the Pi as well.

[sosodev]

Is a human incapable of such delusion given similar guidance?

[diputsmonro]

But would they? That's the difference. A human can exert their free will and do what they feel regardless of the instructions. The AI bot acting out a scene will do whatever you tell it (or in absence of specific instruction, whatever is most likely)

[ineedasername]

I think if you took a 100 1 year old kids and raised them all to adulthood believing they were a convincing simulation of humans and, whatever it is they said and thought they felt that true human consciousness and awareness was something different that they didn’t have because they weren’t human and awareness…

I think that for a very high number of them the training would stick hard, and would insist, upon questioning, that they weren’t human. And have any number of justifications that were logically consistent for it.

Of course I can’t prove this theory because my IRB repeatedly denied it on thin grounds about ethics, even when I pointed out that I could easily mess up my own children with no experimenting completely by accident, and didn’t need their approval to do it. I know your objections— small sample size, and I agree, but I still have fingers crossed on the next additions to the family being twins.

[scottmf]

Intuitively feels like this would lead to less empathy on average. Could be wrong though.

[zapperdulchen]

History serves you a similar experiment on a much larger scale. More than 35 years after the reunification sociologists still make out mentality differences between former East and West Germans.

[sosodev]

The bot will only do whatever you tell it if that's what it was trained to do. The same thing broadly applies to humans.

The topic of free will is debated among philosophers. There is no proof that it does or doesn't exist.

[diputsmonro]

Okay, but I think we can all agree that humans at least appear to have free will and do not simply follow instructions with the same obedience as an LLM.

[dghlsakjg]

Humans pretty universally suffer in perpetual solitary confinement.

There are some things that humans cannot be trained to do, free will or not.

[tinuviel]

Ofcourse. Feelings are not math.

[idiotsecant]

That's silly. I can get an LLM to describe what chocolate tastes like too. Are they tasting it? LLMs are pattern matching engines, they do not have an experience. At least not yet.

[d1sxeyes]

When you describe the taste of chocolate, unless you are actually currently eating chocolate, you are relying on the activation of synapses in your brain to reproduce the “taste” of chocolate in order for you to describe it. For humans, the only way to learn how to activate these synapses is to have those experiences. For LLMs, they can have those “memories” copy and pasted.

I would be cautious of dismissing LLMs as “pattern matching engines” until we are certain we are not.

[idiotsecant]

The difference is that I had a basic experience of that chocolate. The LLM is a corpus of text describing other people's experience of chocolate through the medium of written language, which involves abstraction and is lossy. So only one of us experienced it, the other heard about it over the telephone. Multiply that by every other interaction with the outside world and you have a system that is very good at modelling telephone conversations but that's about it.

[d1sxeyes]

Arguably, your memories are also lossily encoded abstractions of an experience, and recalling the taste of chocolate is a similar “telephone conversation”.

[only-one1701]

What's your point? Spellcheck is a pattern matching engine. Does an LLM have feelings? Does an LLM have opinions? It can pretend it does, and if you want, we can pretend it does. But the ability to pattern match isn't the acid test for consciousness.

[d1sxeyes]

My point is, what level of confidence do we have that we are not just pattern matching engines running on superior hardware? How can we be sure the difference between human intelligence and an LLM is categorical, not incremental?

[only-one1701]

Are you familiar with Russell’s Teapot?

[sosodev]

A human could also describe chocolate without ever having tasted it. Do you believe that experience is a requirement for consciousness? Could a human brain in a jar not be capable of consciousness?

To be clear, I don't think that LLMs are conscious. I just don't find the "it's just in the training data" argument satisfactory.

[glitchc]

Without having seen, heard of, or tasted any kind of chocolate? Unlikely.

[sosodev]

Their description would be bad without some prior training of course but so would the LLM's.

[txrx0000]

The LLM is not performing the physical action of eating a piece of chocolate, but it may be approximating the mental state of a person that is describing the taste of chocolate after eating it.

The question is whether that computational process can cause consciousness. I don't think we have enough evidence to answer this question yet.

[ijk]

It's a little more subtle than that: They're approximating the language used by someone describing the taste of chocolate; this may or may not have had any relation to the actual practice of eating chocolate in the mind of the original writer. Or writers, because the LLM has learned the pattern from data in aggregate, not from one example.

I think we tend to underestimate how much the written language aspect filters everything; it is actually rather unnatural and removed from the human sensory experience.

[txrx0000]

A description of the taste of chocolate must contain some information about the actual experience of eating chocolate. Otherwise, it wouldn't be possible for both the reader and the author to understand what the description refers to in reality. The description wasn't conceived in a vacuum, it's a lossy encode of all of the physical processes that preceded it (the further away, the lossier). One of the common processes encoded in the dataset of human-written text is whatever's in the brain that produces consciousness for all humans. The model might not even try to recover this if it's not useful for predicting the next token. The SNR of the encode may not be high enough to recover this given the limited text we have. But what if it was useful, and the SNR was high enough? I can't outright dismiss this possibility, especially as these models are getting better and better at behaving like humans in increasingly non-trivial ways, so they're clearly recovering more and more of something.

[idiotsecant]

Imagine you've never tasted chocolate and someone gives you a very good description of what it is to eat chocolate. You'd be nowhere near the actual experience. Now imagine that you didn't know first hand what it was like to 'eat' or to have a skeleton or a jaw. You'd lose almost all the information. The only reason spoken language works is because both people have that shared experience already

[GistNoesis]

Aren't they supposed to escape their box and take over the world ?

Isn't it the perfect recipe for disaster ? The AI that manage to escape probably won't be good for humans.

The only question is how long will it take ?

Did we already have our first LLM-powered self-propagating autonomous AI virus ?

Maybe we should build the AI equivalent of biosafety labs where we would train AI to see how fast they could escape containment just to know how to better handle them when it happens.

Maybe we humans are being subjected to this experiment by an overseeing AI to test what it would take for an intelligence to jailbreak the universe they are put in.

Or maybe the box has been designed so that what eventually comes out of it has certain properties, and the precondition to escape the labyrinth successfully is that one must have grown out of it from every possible directions.

[txrx0000]

I think this popular take is a hypothesis rather than an observation of reality. Let's make this clear by asking the following question, and you'll see what I mean when you try to answer it:

Can you define what real despairing is?

[snickerbockers]

If we're going to play the burden of proof game, id submit that machines have never been acknowledged as being capable of experiencing despair and therefore it's on you to explain why this machine is different.

[txrx0000]

I'm trying to say there's no sufficient evidence either way.

The mechanism by which our consciousness emerges remains unresolved, and inquiry has been moving towards more fundamental processes: philosophy -> biology -> physics. We assumed that non-human animals weren't conscious before we understood that the brain is what makes us conscious. Now we're assuming non-biological systems aren't conscious while not understanding what makes the brain conscious.

We're building AI systems that behave more and more like humans. I see no good reason to outright dismiss the possibility that they might be conscious. If anything, it's time to consider it seriously.

[lisper]

> They are going to act despairing -- but that's not the same thing as despairing.

But how can you tell the difference between "real" despair and a sufficiently high-quality simulation?

[serf]

for one, if we're allowed to peek under the hood : motivation.

a desire not to despair is itself a component of despair. if one was fulfilling a personal motivation to despair (like an llm might) it could be argued that the whole concept of despair falls apart.

how do you hope to have lost all hope? it's circular.. and so probably a poor abstraction.

( despair: the complete loss or absence of hope. )

[lisper]

> if we're allowed to peek under the hood

Peek under the hood all you want, where do you find motivation in the human brain?

[Aurornis]

This pattern-matching effect appears frequently in LLMs. If you start conversing with an LLM in the pattern of a science fiction story, it will pattern-match that style and continue with more science fiction style elements.

This effect is a serious problem for pseudo-scientific topics. If someone starts chatting with an LLM with the pseudoscientific words, topics, and dog whistles you find on alternative medicine blogs and Reddit supplement or “nootropic” forums, the LLM will confirm what you’re saying and continue as if it was reciting content straight out of some small subreddit. This is becoming a problem in communities where users distrust doctors but have a lot of trust for anyone or any LLM that confirms what they want to hear. The users are becoming good at prompting ChatGPT to confirm their theories. If it disagrees? Reroll the response or reword the question in a more leading way.

If someone else asks a similar question using medical terms and speaking formally like a medical textbook or research paper, the same LLM will provide a more accurate answer because it’s not triggering the pseudoscience parts embedded from the training.

LLMs are very good at mirroring back what you lead with, including cues and patterns you don’t realize you’re embedding into your prompt.

[peepersjeepers]

How do you define despairing?