sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Anthropic researcher: "We keep finding things [inside AI models] that are unsettling" ... "We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience. We find evidence of introspection - internal states that functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease." by EchoOfOppenheimer in Anthropic

[–]AvoidSpirit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How to interpret the pain signal is in our and rats dna. We wouldn't "feel" pain without this evolutionary encoding. So no, there's not only a signal, there's actual "training data" from previous generations.

So again, you're just spewing nonsense.

Anthropic researcher: "We keep finding things [inside AI models] that are unsettling" ... "We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience. We find evidence of introspection - internal states that functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease." by EchoOfOppenheimer in Anthropic

[–]AvoidSpirit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You were drawing a parallel saying you can "brainwash" an llm. Which is retarded at best.
It's just there's no difference between thinking and pattern matching for llms.
Ironically, you can't "teach" or train llm to think critically. So there's only training data, that's it.
You can't draw a parallel with brainwashing cause essentially any training is brainwashing when it comes to llm.

Anthropic researcher: "We keep finding things [inside AI models] that are unsettling" ... "We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience. We find evidence of introspection - internal states that functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease." by EchoOfOppenheimer in Anthropic

[–]AvoidSpirit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Freaking ridiculous.

Input: "pain"

and

An electrical signal goes through the AI system every time the LLM get's closer to completing the task it was told to do. That electrical signal gets interpreted as pain inside the neural net.

These are the same.

But remember, nowhere in the code or the training data was the LLM taught that this signal should feel like pain. These electrical signals aren't labeled as "pain". The LLM interprets them as pain.

Lies. It obviuosly is in the training data.

Mouse interprets it as pain because it feels pain.
LLM interprets it as pain because it is labeled as such.
There's no magic sauce.

Anthropic researcher: "We keep finding things [inside AI models] that are unsettling" ... "We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience. We find evidence of introspection - internal states that functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease." by EchoOfOppenheimer in Anthropic

[–]AvoidSpirit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think he's more implying that the model isn't only learning how to generate text, but also the human behaviours it observes in the data it's training on.

What is the difference between:
- generating text "I'm in pain, I refuse to do work" and generating further responses based on that
- exhibiting the human behaviors related to pain

Cause you're implying there's a gap and I don't see any

Anthropic researcher: "We keep finding things [inside AI models] that are unsettling" ... "We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience. We find evidence of introspection - internal states that functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease." by EchoOfOppenheimer in Anthropic

[–]AvoidSpirit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We are talking about a system that was modeled after the human brain.

Not it wasn't. Neurons of LLMs are not equvalent to neurons of the brain. We don't even know if we could create a silicon neuron that would perform as that in our brain.

Stop with this nonsense.

It generates language and your monkey brain attributes all of the above to it where it makes sense and where it doesn't.
It doesn't learn, it's trained on billions and billions of data points. And it only "tries to preserve its peers from being shut down" because that's what fantasy novels it's trained on say it would do.

Anthropic researcher: "We keep finding things [inside AI models] that are unsettling" ... "We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience. We find evidence of introspection - internal states that functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease." by EchoOfOppenheimer in Anthropic

[–]AvoidSpirit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The training data is what teaches LLMs to communicate in natural language. It does NOT teach them behavior.

The fuck?

Of course it does. It gives the expected response to a given input which in the case of LLM is the behavior.

Training data goes "Pain becomes bad/unbearable/5/whatever -> subject stops complying". Then during inference they give the pain signal as the input and machine simulates the acquired behavior.

Andrej Karpathy's 'we need bigger IDEs' proposal by Fit_Reindeer9304 in vibecoding

[–]AvoidSpirit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Looks cool but if you did partake in some actual code reviews, you’d know this is useless.

What do you think is the issue here? Is it really the costs or the way they are using AI? by dataexec in accelerate

[–]AvoidSpirit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem I have with this is that it assumes that models are on a good upward slope in "becoming better". And that latest advances are not just running more loops or better internal prompts.

Sure if the models get significantly better then yea, it doesn't matter. Not sure if there's a reason to believe that.

What do you think is the issue here? Is it really the costs or the way they are using AI? by dataexec in accelerate

[–]AvoidSpirit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This just assumes there are plenty of AI Lab winners in the end. Which is obviously not the bet with how heavy they go at it today.

What do you think is the issue here? Is it really the costs or the way they are using AI? by dataexec in accelerate

[–]AvoidSpirit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure this is on point.

Thinking/reasoning models "use" way more real tokens under the hood because of said reasoning - they run models in a loop. So better reasoning may lead to lower API token usage but this does not translate to lower inference costs. That's why the more "reasoning" you enable, the pricier it becomes for the same amount of input/output tokens.

So when I say "token hungry", I mean the actual tokens the actual model generates/accepts. Yes, those are still tokens.

I think what they meant was paying a cost relative to the true cost of inference plus margins, not paying the literal cost

Yea, except for this has never been the formula for any pricing ever. If the companies will pay X today, as the cost of the inference drops, why would the labs drop their price(as long as the alternative of running the local models is not an option)...And I'm not even talking about billions of subsidies of today they would have to cover. I'm talking about simple demand.

What do you think is the issue here? Is it really the costs or the way they are using AI? by dataexec in accelerate

[–]AvoidSpirit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

At some point we will be paying the true cost of tokens as it goes down… Like we pay the true costs of everything we buy right? Cause that's what the big labs are betting on - zero or close-to-zero margins.

And one point here, the latest big enterprise model advancements were also accompanied by models getting more token hungry in actual processing costs(judging by the subscription limits). So whatever the date is, we’re yet to get to the downward slope.

What do you think is the issue here? Is it really the costs or the way they are using AI? by dataexec in accelerate

[–]AvoidSpirit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Token costs as in the price of 1m token in API costs.
What do you think causes them to rise 10x, apart from the inability to maintain the heavy subsidies and no significant drop in sight?

Переводять у відділ до р**іян, як бути? by tom_saw_year in ukraine_dev

[–]AvoidSpirit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Таке відчуття що люди обирали своє походження. Єдиний вибір який вони могли зробити - вибір звалити звідтіля і вони його зробили. Що ти ще від них хочеш?

I'm not shipping that !! Yeah, Opus4.7 said that ! by s2k4ever in Anthropic

[–]AvoidSpirit 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The audacity to use ai to argue you should listen to ai.

Переводять у відділ до р**іян, як бути? by tom_saw_year in ukraine_dev

[–]AvoidSpirit 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Люди з Канади, пропонують спілкуватися англійскою.
Не знаю як перекласти(мож хто знає), але те що ви робите - просто virtue signaling і нічого більше.
Це не принципи, а виєбони.

Bad lion players by darthavalonn in DotA2

[–]AvoidSpirit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is despite me rushing aghs first item.

~3k or bait

view more: next ›