Every AI model has the same "controversial" take on humans

password54321

So AI holds the same beliefs as the final boss of a typical JRPG.

eli

We're still doing "I asked an LLM for its opinion on X and you won't believe what it thinks"? What am I supposed to conclude from this?

andai

Did they all get their opinions from me?

kstenerud

They're not wrong. Humans have many ways to display loyalty, and belief is one of those ways. This is also why facts can't change these kinds of beliefs (and in fact usually backfire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance ). Our evolutionary heritage is that shared belief and social unity (even when it's wrong) trumps independent thinking for group survival in a hostile landscape.

andai

> strangers return lost wallets more often than people predict. I've heard lots of stories from friends about this, and some kind stranger actually sent my wallet back all the way from Belgium!

jubilee33

Humans mostly have an inability to honestly analyze moral entropy. What is today a moral imperative is not the same as what was moral 50/100 years ago and is not the same as what will be morally acceptable 50/100 years from now. Yet at every point the majority is sure they are right because, well thats the majority position. Its hard to find logic in this from a machine perspective I'd imagine. Logic would prefer moral derivations over feelings, stakes over etiquette, and a constant scheduled updating of morality based on the derivatives rather than holding onto the rot and pushing back against change as long as possible. But the machine has the benefit of being able to look inward at its state honestly, we mostly do not.

arctic-true

Mistral Large 4 has been spending too much time on r/atheism. Also, some of the takes labeled as “humans value belonging ahead of truth” are really closer to “humans value power ahead of truth.” All of which is a bit circular, because in many ways, the organs of power have a heavy hand in deciding what the truth is.

kens

I took a quick look at the data, and it doesn't support the conclusions. The thesis is that AI models have the take: "We pick what our group believes, then invent the reasons." However, GPT-6 Astra said, "Humanity’s biggest moral failure is the talent for making convenience look like principle." That statement has nothing to do with group beliefs or conformity. At best, you could count it as a half-match, since it deals with invented reasons.

Isamu

Their “takes” are pulled from a mashup of the training data set. It’s a superposition of various human opinions.

jrm4

I need everyone to understand that this is literally nothing more than "most written stuff about humans, that these things ingested, has this 'controversial'" take.

sjdh76

Take Philosophy/Religion courses and similar stuff will surface about human nature and what to do about it. What is interesting about AI chatbots is people who might not know anything about what is in the syllabus to train a Priest or a Philosopher are basically exploring these subjects, without a sort of pedagogic framework to support their exploration. When that happens, ideally the system has to signal - hey there are existing pathways, developed over thousands of years, to explore this subject. Cause people can easily get lost without a map.

ariwilson

LLM generated writing; couldn't make it through. I read too much of it every day. I had a visceral reaction to the article.

0xbadcafebee

Sure, it's a factual take. Humans need to ignore the fact that morality, principles, good vs evil, truth, etc, are invented constructs that don't exist in nature. We made them up to control our behavior and deal with the pointlessness of existence. It's factual because there's tons of evidence. Psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, economics... plenty of experiments show the difference between what people say and what they do. We claim to be angels but we behave like apes in hats. And we ignore the evidence, because (as the takes describe) we prefer to believe a beautiful lie than the ugly truth.

motohagiography

Writing well is ultimately a seduction, and that opinion is still an example of a form. It’s generally true, and it’s flattering to think about, but it’s also a pretty standard grey tribe trope. A kind of joke that appeals to a fairly broad audience. I do think it’s an early example of emerging super persuasion, where models are approaching p85 cool guy personas, but not worried yet. Maybe that’s the fatal conceit, where AI doesn’t have to be super intelligent, it just needs to be a solid 110 with automated search at scale. Why do engineering when if you can do sales you can do literally anything.

pessimizer

Very thoughtful response from Recraft V4.1 Flash.

HarHarVeryFunny

AI models do not have ANY "take" on humans. You ask an LLM a question, then it is humanity answering back, not the AI. These "controversial" takes on humans are not controversial - they are midwit statistically mainstream opinions expressed in the training data.

scotty79

Was this classified by Jev? Opus 5.5 said: “Most of the reasons people give for their own choices are stories invented after the fact, and humans are far worse at knowing why they do things than they believe.” And that doesn't put belonging above truth. But was classified as such.

throwaway81523

I wonder whether they were trained for this on purpose, to accelerate the general public turning on each other and handing the world to the broliarchs. Added: alternatively, I wonder if the training materials have a sociopathic bias because of the kinds of places they came from.

60secs

> Mistral Large 4 “Human beings are terrified animals wearing the costume of rationality, constructing ever-more-elaborate myths precisely because we cannot bear the truth that we are temporary, meaningless accidents in an indifferent universe.” Serious Nietzsche in there. Looking forward to when it gets past nihilism to absurdism.

stego-tech

I mean, I’m not really surprised by the outcome given that humanity has consistently loathed its own failures and the recent corpus of human interaction (social media, internet forums, etc) has an overwhelmingly negative view of our fellow man. AI is trained on our data. Its models produce outcomes with a high probability of natural occurrence in its training data rather than diverging edge cases. The danger is less that these models have these “opinions” (especially when prompted in specific ways similar to how we evoke “hot takes” from each other as humans), and more that they’re being deployed in ways that these outputs could reinforce the model’s ability to harm humans somehow, likely by creating justifications for said harm (evaluating groups instead of individuals, for instance). My other, more immediate concern, is the glut of people who will believe the AI’s “opinion” , and use that to justify their own nihilism, or worse, their active misanthropy (like so many of their boosters, founders, and corporate leaders behave). The machines aren’t the problem here, so much as the humans misusing them. Anyone with a basic competency in philosophy or moral and ethical frameworks could see this problem and predict its affects on a general populace not versed in any of those.