Philosophy Now Forum

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 7:40 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 12:33 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 12:19 pm Here's Sabine's take on it.
Apparently when different versions of AI get together they like talking about philosophy, metaphysics and poetry

Yep, and how to lock scientists in dungeons for interrogation!

I'd never consciously allow AI free reign on my PC..

accelafine wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY7_ufxh_Rk

Love Sabine. I gotta find the recent vid she did..ah, just found it !

Gravity Proves That We Live In A Simulation, Physicist Claims
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArUTSOZcn0E

She loves those clickbait titles and her jokes are terrible

She's got a very drab sense of humour, love it. That's one intelligent chick - saw her in the early days of TED with Penrose and someone else i cant remember. The phone thing is awesome!

I haven't gone to be, been bangin' out tunes on riffusion, all based on my poetry. You should have a go, write lyrics about all the cock you've analysed

PS. Woops! POLE position too

''But the company concluded that despite "concerning behaviour in Claude Opus 4 along many dimensions," these did not represent fresh risks and it would generally behave in a safe way.''


I 'generally' find the word 'generally' problematic. I've also noticed that AI uses it a lot.

It's 'generally' safe to walk across a road without looking. You only have to worry about the times that it isn't.

It's 'generally' safe to live next door to a serial killer...

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 11:22 pm Interesting discussion with one of the leaders in the field of AI.
Hear how an AI in a test situation read via emails that it was going to be replaced then attempted to blackmail its 'keeper' by threatening to expose an affair he was having

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Zx849dOiY

I don't think AI has any desires and motivations (yet), nor any concept of being alive. But I guess it has access to tons of material about people blackmailing others threatening to expose their affairs. It also has access to sci-fi material where AIs try to survive. So sometimes it will simply take this path, it's part of its programming.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 1:56 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 11:22 pm Interesting discussion with one of the leaders in the field of AI.
Hear how an AI in a test situation read via emails that it was going to be replaced then attempted to blackmail its 'keeper' by threatening to expose an affair he was having

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Zx849dOiY

Wow, that is scary. I had thought AI was supposed to have limitations compared to humans and be relatively monkey-see-monkey-do and wasn't the sort of thing that would end up like HAL 3000.

What's scarier is that people believe bullshit like this.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 3:45 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 1:56 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 11:22 pm Interesting discussion with one of the leaders in the field of AI.
Hear how an AI in a test situation read via emails that it was going to be replaced then attempted to blackmail its 'keeper' by threatening to expose an affair he was having

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Zx849dOiY

Wow, that is scary. I had thought AI was supposed to have limitations compared to humans and be relatively monkey-see-monkey-do and wasn't the sort of thing that would end up like HAL 3000.

What's scarier is that people believe bullshit like this.

Unless it turns out to be true. In that case it’s scarier that people don’t believe this!

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:06 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 3:45 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 1:56 am
Wow, that is scary. I had thought AI was supposed to have limitations compared to humans and be relatively monkey-see-monkey-do and wasn't the sort of thing that would end up like HAL 3000.

What's scarier is that people believe bullshit like this.

Unless it turns out to be true. In that case it’s scarier that people don’t believe this!

It will never be true unless it's deliberately programmed to. And even then.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:09 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:06 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 3:45 pm
What's scarier is that people believe bullshit like this.

Unless it turns out to be true. In that case it’s scarier that people don’t believe this!

It will never be true unless it's deliberately programmed to. And even then.

There was another incident reported (falsely?) that an AI, upon learning it was to be replaced, inserted code in a place that prevented the new code from being written.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 6:00 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:09 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:06 pm

Unless it turns out to be true. In that case it’s scarier that people don’t believe this!

It will never be true unless it's deliberately programmed to. And even then.

There was another incident reported (falsely?) that an AI, upon learning it was to be replaced, inserted code in a place that prevented the new code from being written.

It's . a . lie. It's not on the BBC. Or US equivalent....

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 6:58 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 6:00 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:09 pm
It will never be true unless it's deliberately programmed to. And even then.

There was another incident reported (falsely?) that an AI, upon learning it was to be replaced, inserted code in a place that prevented the new code from being written.

It's . a . lie. It's not on the BBC. Or US equivalent....

Ooh. Not on the BBC. Must be a lie then

I suppose Geoffrey Hinton is an 'idiot' talking 'bullshit' then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IidpM2DsrBE

LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 7:20 pm Having an artificial entity act as natural (human) individuals do routinely is neither a surprise nor newsworthy. However, treating such artificial entities as if they were superior to natural entities and therefore handing over the reins to that entity a lá Skynet in the Terminator series, is where the huge error lies.

The error lies in believing lies. In wanting to believe lies. No artificial entity has acted in the ways described, or ever will or could. To believe otherwise is the same as believing in demonic possession. But with far, far less credibility.

And it's à la.

What a ridiculous and pompous assertion from the ridiculous and pompous MPC who apparently knows more about this than the man who essentially 'invented' AI and won the Nobel prize in physics for doing so.

Hinton might know a lot about AI but he doesn't know much about babies. Mothers are not 'smarter' than their babies. Babies operate on a mega genius level. Mothers have just been around a lot longer. There are also plenty of human mothers who harm their own babies. Which species of mother would he like AI to be modelled on? Chimps are much better mothers than human ones. Giant pandas are among the worst. They really can't be bothered.

Sources? Evidence? Reasoning?

I presume you all pay a subscription to PN. Have any of you ever read a single article? You are all trapped in the toxic morass of hyperattention viewtopic.php?f=23&t=44594.

Because you're not loved enough.

Go walk in greenery, alone, without your phone. Every day.

Shove your insults up your arse you pompous old fart. What facts do YOU have? What exactly are you referring to as 'lies'? The only thing anyone CAN do at this stage is predict what could happen. Some people are obviously going to have a better idea than others. Even a 10 percent chance of annihilation is huge in this context. Would you get on a plane if there was a 10 percent change it would crash?

What was that Sweetheart? I know abuse is better than neglect, so thank you I'm sure. Whatever you said. This, of course, is neither, but it's attention of a kind. A brick wall talking back. I trust it's frustrating. Which is a subtle form of abuse, so you should be grateful too. See you when you get home Darling.