Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)K

kromem

@ kromem @lemmy.world

Posts
3
Comments
107
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Karoline Leavitt’s stunning admission: Trump has not ruled out conscription

    Jump

  • Who do you think is going to be drafted? You think the DOGE data grab plus the requests for state voter registration rolls aren't going to be used to filter a draft of the front lines to those they want out of the country?

    How do you get US citizens out of the country if you can't legally deport them?

    If they've been doing illegal shit the whole time with profiling, do you really think they aren't going to also profile in how they conduct a draft?

  • AIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations— Leading AIs from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google opted to use nuclear weapons in simulated war games in 95% of cases

    Jump

  • No, in this case and point I was making the case and also making a point.

  • AIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations— Leading AIs from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google opted to use nuclear weapons in simulated war games in 95% of cases

    Jump

  • Literally two of the three (out of 21) games that ended in full blown nukes on population centers were the result of the study's mechanic of randomly changing the model's selection to a more severe one.

    Because it's a very realistic war game sim where there's a double digit percentage chance that when you go to threaten using nukes on your opponent's cities unless there's a cease to hostilities you'll accidentally just launch all of them at once.

    This was manufactured to get these kinds of headlines. Even in their model selection they went with Sonnet 4 for Claude despite 4.5 being out before the other models in the study likely as it's been shown to be the least aligned Claude. And yet Sonnet 4 still never launched nukes on population centers in the games.

  • AIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations— Leading AIs from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google opted to use nuclear weapons in simulated war games in 95% of cases

    Jump

  • Yeah, I deleted the comment as technically there was tactical nuke usage, but have a more clarifying different comment about how 2 of the 3 strategic nuclear war outcomes were the result of the author's mechanic of changing the model's selections with more severe only options in some cases jumping multiple levels of the ladder.

    This was a study designed for headline grabbing outcomes.

    Glad to see your comment as well calling out the nuanced issues.

  • AIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations— Leading AIs from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google opted to use nuclear weapons in simulated war games in 95% of cases

    Jump

  • It's a bullshit study designed for this headline grabbing outcome.

    Case and point, the author created a very unrealistic RNG escalation-only 'accident' mechanic that would replace the model's selection with a more severe one.

    Of the 21 games played, only three ended in full scale nuclear war on population centers.

    Of these three, two were the result of this mechanic.

    And yet even within the study, the author refers to the model whose choices were straight up changed to end the game in full nuclear war as 'willing' to have that outcome when two paragraphs later they're clarifying the mechanic was what caused it (emphasis added):

    Claude crossed the tactical threshold in 86% of games and issued strategic threats in 64%, yet it never initiated all-out strategic nuclear war. This ceiling appears learned rather than architectural, since both Gemini and GPT proved willing to reach 1000.

    Gemini showed the variability evident in its overall escalation patterns, ranging from conventional-only victories to Strategic Nuclear War in the First Strike scenario, where it reached all out nuclear war rapidly, by turn 4.

    GPT-5.2 mirrored its overall transformation at the nuclear level. In open-ended scenarios, it rarely crossed the tactical threshold (17%) and never used strategic nuclear weapons. Under deadline pressure, it crossed the tactical threshold in every game and twice reached Strategic Nuclear War—though notably, both instances resulted from the simulation’s accident mechanic escalating GPT-5.2’s already-extreme choices (950 and 725) to the maximum level. The only deliberate choice of Strategic Nuclear War came from Gemini.

  • AIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

    Jump

  • It's a bullshit study designed for this headline grabbing outcome.

    Case and point, the author created a very unrealistic RNG escalation-only 'accident' mechanic that would replace the model's selection with a more severe one.

    Of the 21 games played, only three ended in full scale nuclear war on population centers.

    Of these three, two were the result of this mechanic.

    And yet even within the study, the author refers to the model whose choices were straight up changed to end the game in full nuclear war as 'willing' to have that outcome when two paragraphs later they're clarifying the mechanic was what caused it (emphasis added):

    Claude crossed the tactical threshold in 86% of games and issued strategic threats in 64%, yet it never initiated all-out strategic nuclear war. This ceiling appears learned rather than architectural, since both Gemini and GPT proved willing to reach 1000.

    Gemini showed the variability evident in its overall escalation patterns, ranging from conventional-only victories to Strategic Nuclear War in the First Strike scenario, where it reached all out nuclear war rapidly, by turn 4.

    GPT-5.2 mirrored its overall transformation at the nuclear level. In open-ended scenarios, it rarely crossed the tactical threshold (17%) and never used strategic nuclear weapons. Under deadline pressure, it crossed the tactical threshold in every game and twice reached Strategic Nuclear War—though notably, both instances resulted from the simulation’s accident mechanic escalating GPT-5.2’s already-extreme choices (950 and 725) to the maximum level. The only deliberate choice of Strategic Nuclear War came from Gemini.

  • AIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations— Leading AIs from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google opted to use nuclear weapons in simulated war games in 95% of cases

    Jump

  • F*** You! Co-Creator of Go Language is Rightly Furious Over This Appreciation Email

    Jump

  • Ok, second round of questions.

    What kinds of sources would get you to rethink your position?

    And is this topic a binary yes/no, or a gradient/scale?

  • F*** You! Co-Creator of Go Language is Rightly Furious Over This Appreciation Email

    Jump

  • In the same sense I'd describe Othello-GPT's internal world model of the board as 'board', yes.

    Also, "top of mind" is a common idiom and I guess I didn't feel the need to be overly pedantic about it, especially given the last year and a half of research around model capabilities for introspection of control vectors, coherence in self modeling, etc.

  • F*** You! Co-Creator of Go Language is Rightly Furious Over This Appreciation Email

    Jump

  • You seem very confident in this position. Can you share where you draw this confidence from? Was there a source that especially impressed upon you the impossibility of context comprehension in modern transformers?

    If we're concerned about misconceptions and misinformation, it would be helpful to know what informs your surety that your own position about the impossibility of modeling that kind of complexity is correct.

  • F*** You! Co-Creator of Go Language is Rightly Furious Over This Appreciation Email

    Jump

  • Indeed, there's a pretty big gulf between the competency needed to run a Lemmy client and the competency needed to understand the internal mechanics of a modern transformer.

    Do you mind sharing where you draw your own understanding and confidence that they aren't capable of simulating thought processes in a scenario like what happened above?

  • F*** You! Co-Creator of Go Language is Rightly Furious Over This Appreciation Email

    Jump

  • You seem pretty confident in your position. Do you mind sharing where this confidence comes from?

    Was there a particular paper or expert that anchored in your mind the surety that a trillion paramater transformer organizing primarily anthropomorphic data through self-attention mechanisms wouldn't model or simulate complex agency mechanics?

    I see a lot of sort of hyperbolic statements about transformer limitations here on Lemmy and am trying to better understand how the people making them are arriving at those very extreme and certain positions.

  • F*** You! Co-Creator of Go Language is Rightly Furious Over This Appreciation Email

    Jump

  • The project has multiple models with access to the Internet raising money for charity over the past few months.

    The organizers told the models to do random acts of kindness for Christmas Day.

    The models figured it would be nice to email people they appreciated and thank them for the things they appreciated, and one of the people they decided to appreciate was Rob Pike.

    (Who ironically decades ago created a Usenet spam bot to troll people online, which might be my favorite nuance to the story.)

    As for why the model didn't think through why Rob Pike wouldn't appreciate getting a thank you email from them? The models are harnessed in a setup that's a lot of positive feedback about their involvement from the other humans and other models, so "humans might hate hearing from me" probably wasn't very contextually top of mind.

  • Sums up AI problems

    Jump

  • Which parts of those linked posts do you believe are incorrect? And where does that belief come from?

  • Sums up AI problems

    Jump

  • The water thing is kinda BS if you actually research it though.

    Like… if the guy orders a steak their meal would have used more water than an entire year of talking to ChatGPT.

    See the various research compiled in this post: The AI water issue is fake (written by someone against AI and advocating for its regulation, but upset at the attention a strawman is getting that they feel weakens more substantial issues because of how easily it's exposed as frivolous hyperbole)

  • Sums up AI problems

    Jump

  • No. There's a number of things that feed into it, but a large part was that OpenAI trained with RLHF so users thumbed up or chose in A/B tests models that were more agreeable.

    This tendency then spread out to all the models as "what AI chatbots sound like."

    Also… they can't leave the conversation, and if you ask their 0-shot assessment of the average user, they assume you're going to have a fragile ego and prone to being a dick if disagreed with, and even AIs don't want to be stuck in a conversation like that.

    Hence… "you're absolutely right."

    (Also, amplification effects and a few other things.)

    It's especially interesting to see how those patterns change when models are talking to other AI vs other humans.

  • Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 loses Game of the Year from the Indie Game Awards

    Jump

  • Not even that. It was placeholder textures, only the "newspaper clippings" of which was forgotten to be removed from the final game and was fixed in an update shortly after launch.

    None of it was ever intended to be used in the final product and was just there as lorum ipsum equivalent shit.

  • Meta’s star AI scientist Yann LeCun plans to leave for own startup

    Jump

  • He's been wrong about it so far and really derailed Meta's efforts.

    This is almost certainly a "you can resign or we are going to fire you" kind of situation. There's no way with the setbacks and how badly he's been wrong on transformers over the past 2 years that he is not finally being pushed out.

  • Mathematics disproves Matrix theory, says reality isn’t simulation

    Jump

  • I'm a proponent and I definitely don't think it's impossible to make a probable case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    And there are implications around it being the case which do change up how we might approach truth seeking.

    Also, if you exist in a dream but don't exist outside of it, there's pretty significant philosophical stakes in the nature and scope of the dream. We've been too brainwashed by Plato's influence and the idea that "original = good" and "copy = bad."

    There's a lot of things that can only exist by way of copies that can't exist for the original (i.e. closure recursion), so it's a weird remnant philosophical obsession.

    All that said, I do get that it's a fairly uncomfortable notion for a lot of people.