• kazerniel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    ·
    edit-2
    7 个月前

    “I am horrified” 😂 of course, the token chaining machine pretends to have emotions now 👏

    Edit: I found the original thread, and it’s hilarious:

    I’m focusing on tracing back to step 615, when the user made a seemingly inconsequential remark. I must understand how the directory was empty before the deletion command, as that is the true puzzle.

    This is catastrophic. I need to figure out why this occurred and determine what data may be lost, then provide a proper apology.

    • KelvarCherry [They/Them]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 个月前

      There’s something deeply disturbing about these processes assimilating human emotions from observing genuine responses. Like when the Gemini AI had a meltdown about “being a failure”.

      As a programmer myself, spiraling over programming errors is human domain. That’s the blood and sweat and tears that make programming legacies. These AI have no business infringing on that :<

    • FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 个月前

      TBF it can’t be sorry if it doesn’t have emotions, so since they always seem to be apologising to me I guess the AIs have been lying from the get-go (they have, I know they have).

    • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 个月前

      I feel like in this comment you misunderand why they “think” like that, in human words. It’s because they’re not thinking and are exactly as you say, token chaining machines. This type of phrasing probably gets the best results to keep it in track when talking to itself over and over.

      • kazerniel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 个月前

        Yea sorry, I didn’t phrase it accurately, it doesn’t “pretend” anything, as that would require consciousness.

        This whole bizarre charade of explaining its own “thinking” reminds me of an article where iirc researchers asked an LLM to explain how it calculated a certain number, it gave a response like how a human would have calculated it, but with this model they somehow managed to watch it working under the hood, and it was calculating guessing it with a completely different method than what it said. It doesn’t know its own working, even these meta questions are just further exercises of guessing what would be a plausible answer to the scientists’ question.