AIs don't do what you want. This is bad

orionblastar

You can ask an AI like GROK for an opinion on something, then disagree with it, and it says you are probably right and tells you what you want to hear. Like a Yes-Man.

Terr_

Worse, it's not that LLMs are thinking the wrong thoughts, but those kind of "thoughts" aren't there to be correctable in the first place. Ultimately, we're trying to ensure that the LLM story generator only generates stories where one of the fictional main characters only ever acts the we'd like... which could be much harder.

polynomial

Do they do what capital wants? That's the real question.

gkoberger

I'm down for disliking AI, but I don't know if "overeagerness" is exactly an AI not doing what you want. Even by the sites own definition ("where your agents do what you want to the point of overriding existing permissions/safeguards to complete a task"), it's doing _exactly_ what you want.

gerdesj

"He's not the Messiah and is a really naughty boy" ... or words to that effect. Can't be arsed to dig out a search engine and will rely on seriously addled brain.

alexhans

I'm a broken record but with: - evals - limiting AIs to tool calling, bounded planning, interpreting/producing natural language. - bounding non determinism - investing in small tools/security (If something shouldn't happen, then it shouldn't not be possible, RBAC style). They can be good enough for a massive amount of contexts.

xyzsparetimexyz

I learnt earlier that claude forcefully closes a conversation if you call it a wanker too many times in a row. Pretending that LLMs are capable of being offended feels like a misalignment all of its own.

Quarrelsome

reminds me of software to an extent. The issue with most software projects is humans, they ask for the wrong things, stress urgency arbitrarily, fail to see the big picture, are disorganised, give conflicting commands, etc, etc. When I use reasonably recent models they can give me some fantastic output and do pretty much _exactly_ what I want. I assume when they don't, then that it's my fuck up tbh.

sublinear

I wish we had failure stats like this across all models and for all attempted use cases , not just these vague and common criticisms. It would really help the end users decide which AI models are worth using for their projects, if any. It would make it a lot easier to ignore most of the insane promises and pointless arguing. I do think LLMs have potential, but not while it's still being advertised as general intelligence or whatever politically charged scifi nonsense that makes the chronically online salivate. Considering the amount of investment involved and disillusionment, the public will be demanding this soon anyway. I am looking forward to it.

array4277

>train model on human data >be surprised when it replicates human flaws That's literally what it's designed to do. It is not intelligent. It is a parrot, trained on no small amount of dysfunctional human interactions.