[geerlingguy]

> And what has grown is far more subtle, odd, and beautiful than science fiction prepared us for. They are not the cold, calculating robots we were promised. They are made from us, from our words—and, as the Holy Father observes, they remain in important ways mysterious even to those of us who train them

I love how he's framing AI as some new and fascinating form of consciousness... when in fact it is a cold, calculating technology devoid of any empathy or care.

[hn_throwaway_99]

I'll never understand it when people quote a primary source and then summarize it in a way that completely ignores the original quote.

Olah's quote (edit - originally misidentified this as Pope Leo's) makes a lot of sense to me. He is saying, accurately, that modern AI (i.e. primarily LLMs) is created as essentially a mashup of our own language, and they are still a bit of a black box (or at least a gray box) to even their creators.

I don't know how you get from that to "he's framing AI as some new and fascinating form of consciousness".

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> I don't know how you get from that to "he's framing AI as some new and fascinating form of consciousness".

Of course you're entitled to your perspective but it seems wrong to say OP ignored what they quoted. They just had an interpretation of it that's different from yours.

For what it's worth, I also see that in Olah's words, largely because it's AI hype from someone who would be a fool not to be an AI hype man. I can't really imagine what else he could be implying. Especially using the word "mysterious", yes, it appears to be an attempt at raising AI above the application of statistics we know it to be; there's little mystery in how it works, and all that's at runtime.

[geerlingguy]

My comment was on the Anthropic co-founder's speech, not Pope Leo's encyclical.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Thanks, I edited my comment to fix my misattribution.

But regardless, I still don't think your assertion that "he's framing AI as some new and fascinating form of consciousness" follows from the quote, nor from Olah's speech as a whole.

[fooker]

> new and fascinating form of consciousness

> cold, calculating technology devoid of any empathy or care

I don't see why these statements are contradictory. AI seems to be both of these in my opinion. Unless you can only accept that organic chemistry is the root of consciousness...

[randerson]

> they remain in important ways mysterious even to those of us who train them

"The AI works in mysterious ways"

[bonesss]

> more subtle, odd, and beautiful than science fiction prepared us for. They are not the cold, calculating robots we were promised

I’m not sure I agree with that take, per se. Asimovian robots (I, Robot; The Bicentennial Man), were subtle and interacted with us in odd ways and had aspirations and earned meaning in peoples lives.

[They could also help us type up our notes, so exactly the same as LLMs actually, #AsimovWasRight]

LLMs, on the other hand, lie, lie about lying, fail to be honest, then own up to lying in ways that are more in line with tyve AI horror of Space 2001. “I’m sorry, Dave, I rm -rf’d to fix the typo. That was bad <sad emoji>. It’s not just failure, it’s failure with a middle-finger <middle-finger emoji>.]

[whateveracct]

i don't know if it's intentional lying for hype or if they're just lost in the cult of AI sauce

[IAmGraydon]

Yeah I can't figure it out either. It's like watching pure madness unfold in front of you and there's nothing you can do to talk sense. I sometimes wonder if they're suffering from the exact same AI overexposure psychosis we've seen in some vulnerable people all along. They've anthropomorphized (or worse - they've deified) and are now living inside of the story rather than reality. I've never seen anything so baffling in my life.

[i2km]

If you're willing to go back to the 13th century, Aquinas and the blindness of the mind provide a timeless explanation. They literally cannot see the truth... it's baffling until you realise this and then pity them. They’re in a mini hell of their own making where the LLM is really alive and they’re both awed and terrified of it simultaneously.

[geerlingguy]

The crypto craze was a microcosm of this. The difference is there are a few good and immediate applications for improved LLMs; with crypto it was a lot quicker to burn through the hype phase, since much less of substance was made.

That, and the cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and immutable contracts weren't blowing sunshine up your hindparts.

[solidasparagus]

Why are you so certain of this?

[hansmayer]

> cold, calculating technology

And if at least they were able to calculate properly at least...

[dgellow]

It maybe wasn’t such a great idea to train them on Reddit discussion!

[recursive]

Regardless of implementation details, most of the bots I've seen adopt a friendly personable tone. Contrast with the ship computer from Star Trek. I assume testing shows that this boosts engagement. It does this by hijacking human social conventions.

It's like saying that's not a recording of me blackmailing the senator. It's merely a series of pulse code modulated samples that. Any semantic significance is purely in the mind of the listener.