Recent content by Dale

If the test is limited to 5 minutes then it should be pretty easy to discriminate between a LLM and a human. Just make the question involve something that a human cannot do in 5 min. Like require a 10000 word response.

Well, IMO that’s both a reasonable complaint and a good reason to not get bogged down in this argument. There are far more productive issues to discuss, particularly when one of the terms is subject to so much “drift”. I think that before someone claims that a LLM is intelligent or not they...

Agreed. I like these sorts of definitions because they directly address real risks without getting bogged down in these “fuzzy” concepts. We can discuss deceptive AI and agree if something meets this definition without having to agree if it is intelligent. And more importantly, we can start to...

The paper that @PeroK provided gave a decent definition of "deception" for their paper. It is: "We define deception as the systematic inducement of false beliefs in others, as a means to accomplish some outcome other than saying what is true." Note that this definition (other than the word...

Indeed, yes. A lot of the things that I think need regulation are actually just standard engineering ethics for safety-critical devices. Unfortunately, most companies, including software companies, do not follow such ethical practices if they are not regulated.

I am concerned about regulations. Regulations are legally binding on the companies that wish to produce products covered by the regulations. Ethics are binding on members of a profession. They cover the professional behavior of a group of people. But even non professionals of a regulated...

I completely agree that a trained deep neural network is more than the sum of its parts. I don’t see those as being mutually exclusive. I would see a LLM lie to be one category of deep neural network hallucination. So it would be a bug like any other hallucination. Once you have an operational...

In my opinion, this is a red herring. An AI is an engineered product. We do not accept harms from engineered products simply because humans can inflict similar harms. AI companies need to be held liable for the actual damages caused by their products, including punitive damages where...

I agree, that is a different problem. Interesting. I think that would be something that could be measured in students. A big problem is when LLMs tell people things that are wrong, but not clearly so. It is much harder to detect, and even harder to fix.

Oops, sorry, I thought you were @gleem I was just being a troublemaker. I don’t think Helen Keller’s mental state is at all relevant to the important questions about AI today, like the actual risks that they currently pose and their typical malfunctions.

He did that in his 1905 paper “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies”. Well before his death.

Don't you want the support? You are clearly right that she had no self-awareness. The test clearly supports your position.

Indeed. She would have failed the rouge test.

A LLM would not be able to make any use of sensory or interactive hardware. This has nothing to do with intelligence or any of the "fuzzy" concepts here. LLM's are simply not built to handle or process that kind of input.

That is very far off. The correct answer is 1.515 Your concept of “green survives” appears to be the problem.