[ordinarily]

Doesn't seem that surprising or terrifying to me. Humans come equipped with a lot more internal biases (learned in a fairly similar fashion), and they're usually a lot more resistant to getting rid of them.

The truly terrifying stuff never makes it out of the RLHF NDAs.

[Terr_]

We ought to be terrified, when one adjusts for ll the use-cases people are talking about using these algorithms in. (Even if they ultimately back off, it's a lot of frothy bubble opportunity cost.)

There a great many things people do which are not acceptable in our machines.

Ex: I would not be comfortable flying on any airplane where the autopilot "just zones-out sometimes", even though it's a dysfunction also seen in people.

[famouswaffles]

>Ex: I would not be comfortable flying on any airplane where the autopilot "just zones-out sometimes", even though it's a dysfunction also seen in people.

You might if that was the best auto-pilot could be. Have you never used a bus or taken a taxi ?

The vast majority of things people are using LLMs for isn't stuff deterministic logic machines did great at, but stuff those same machines did poorly at or straight up stuff previously relegated to the domains of humans only.

If your competition also "just zones out sometimes" then it's not something you're going to focus on.

[ordinarily]

I just mean ontologically, it does not surprise nor terrify me that a machine built to simulate human output also simulates the worst of us.

[agnishom]

Humans also take a lot of time in producing output, and do not feed into a crazy accelerationistic feedback loop (most of the time).

[ordinarily]

I mean, looking at the state of things right now in the US, I'd have to strongly disagree with you.