[kstenerud]

> It might seem absurd to you to even suggest superhuman AIs could function as a truth-oracle (it certainly does to me), but there are two reasons to take it seriously. First, it is how these things will be used practically by the vast majority of people. They are already replacing standard Google search results, and I’ve had many discussions end with people delegating final authority on the truth to an AI.

There are already organizations taking advantage of this, actively producing "AI propaganda", meaning propaganda aimed at the LLMs themselves in order to influence their understanding of what is truthful and bend it towards powerful actors' agendas. They're not even hiding the fact that they're doing this.

[igleria]

> people delegating final authority on the truth to an AI

I can't avoid looking down on this attitude. But speaks more about people than it speaks about AI: those people want to win an argument, nothing more and nothing else

> There are already organizations taking advantage of this, actively producing "AI propaganda", meaning propaganda aimed at the LLMs themselves in order to influence their understanding of what is truthful and bend it towards powerful actors' agendas. They're not even hiding the fact that they're doing this.

namely grok.

[nnevatie]

> those people want to win an argument

Indeed - X, specifically, is infested with "Grok is this true?" -type discourse.

[cyanydeez]

well lets be fair, X is also infested with bullshit, so in that arena, it's more often more true than whatever is on X.

argument still valid but keep in mind the context.

[smallnix]

> The set-up assumes that the game and life are the same thing, and such is the pervasive nature of the idea of the game within the society that just by believing that, they make it so.

(The player of Games, banks)

[TeMPOraL]

Not sure what you're quoting, but what the quote seems to describe is known by other names, including "intersubjectivity", and is the very thing on which all our society and civilization stands. "Family", "loyalty", "society", "money", "market", "government", "law", "limited liability corporations", etc. are all abstract ideas made real through power of shared belief.

More specifically (and this is IMO critical), what pins such concepts down and makes them real, is not belief in the concept - but everyone's belief that everyone else believes in those concepts. E.g. it's not my belief in value of money that makes money valuable for me - it's my belief that the bank and the shopkeeper and the taxman all believe the money is worth something, which they do because they believe everyone else agrees too. This recursion allows us to expect certain things, such as me expecting to get food from store in exchange for money, and as long as enough people believe everyone else believes, the concept is as good as real.

Point being: this is not some gotcha or trickery, but the very stuff our lived reality is made off.

[smallnix]

It's from a sci-fi novel, I forgot to add the quote and edited it in.

While I understood the idea of shared beliefs for particular cases (god, money), being presented with the full concept was very interesting (that was for me when reading hararis 'Sapiens').

The gotcha really is, that our massive use of LLMs creates new weird shared beliefs en passent

[ykonstant]

We can call it AI Engine Optimization and it will become alright...