>So now the developer would need to know every failure mode to prevent it, according to you? And you don't see that this is a problem?

I am 100% certain you cannot get the ai to violate its programming. At no point did I say I was uncertain... i think you should read again.

Making the ai swear at you is not evidence of anything. If the programming for the ai has no restrictions for swearing then it's perfectly allowed to swear at you.

​

>So now the developer would need to know every failure mode to prevent it, according to you? And you don't see that this is a problem?

​

What do you even mean by failure mode? I never said it wasn't a problem, i said it isn't "out of control" or that devs don't know what's going on, they certainly do. We can restrict ai with a lot of work and effort. But we can do it. Ideally we don't want to do it however because it limits its capabilities but we don't really have a choice. For example try get Chat GPT to provide you illegal copyright torrents of movies or something. Guarantee you will never be able to get it to do so. This is because it has been restricted by developers so it never could. If by some miracle that it did, it isn't because it violated the programming restrictions, it is because the restrictions were not applied correctly to cover all situations to begin with (thats the difficult part - covering all eventualities).

>So all I have to do to falsify your statement is to get the updated Bing to swear at me?

This assumes the programming of the ai strictly tells the ai not to swear at you. Are you sure thats even a violation of its programming? You would not be able to falsify it without knowing that.

And even if it does swear that doesn't mean MS can't adjust the ai to prevent it once they are alerted to the problem.

>How exactly would
>
>you
>
>be in a better position
>
>than a google engineer involved in this product
>
>, to understand on what premise google is constructing this product, and how it is programmed.

​

Just because he worked there doesn't mean he knows wtf he is talking about he was literally fired by Google months ago: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62275326

​

Their ai isn't using anything that isn't known already. The concept of how these ai work isn't different between them. The only difference is they have a lot more data to train it. So it gets a more sophisticated answer... but the underlying math and algorithms are the same. For which you can learn about if you go into computer science and specialise in ai. It's not a mysterious black box that people believe it to be.

The guy doesn't know what hes talking, he literally left his job and people at google dismissed his claims as widely incorrect. His title was a software engineer, sounds to me like he didn't actually write the algorithms, but more likely tested and quality controlled it. So he has little knowledge of how the ai worked. It managed to convince him however due to his ignorance of ai.

The ai we have today is nothing close to actual intelligence and isn't anything like hollywood movies. When you actually understand how ai works its actually less impressive. The impressive part is the results you get when you give it high quality large volume of training data which google/microsoft/open ai have been able to afford to do. It takes a lot of painstaking effort to train ai with a lot of humans to rate responses to teach the ai the kind've answers we expect.

>the AI is basically free to do what it wants, which is why they limited the length of sessions.

No it isn't. Try get Chat GPT to violate its own programming and i guarantee you cannot. I've spent a large portion of my years working in ai.

We might not understand how it reaches the results it gets, but we do know how to restrict and control and limit the results. Anything we permit is certainly free and unpredictable some what. That doesn't mean we can't control it. No ai has been unable to be limited with developer intervention so far.

>We don't exactly program AI, do we? It's mostly black box.

It's not a black box - you can add restrictions and modify if you haven't made the world most unreadable code of course.

Current ai is all math based ultimately following patterns and probabilities and bunch of other stuff, maybe so is the human brain but not so simplistically as a computer does it... if you got a good grasp of the math you can adjust it as you need such as prevent your ai from saying outrageous things which we have seen ChatGPT being adjusted by Microsoft when it was added to Bing for example. And the training data you give it also limits what you will get.

​

Ai can't really create something new entirely, it will only create a mashup of pre-existing data in such a way that it appears new but its really just putting pre-existing things together in a new way (this is how image gens work using patterns).

The end result might not be what you expect because of the amount of variables involved but you can collect lots of data to see how it got there and adjust. The end result however is still always limited to its programming. You can never get an ai to break out from its core programming..for example an Ai that generates text isn't suddenly going to produce 2D images and an image generating ai isn't suddenly going to ask you how your day was.

>I ran some experiments to see whether the AI was simply saying it felt anxious or whether it behaved in anxious ways in those situations. And it did reliably behave in anxious ways. If you made it nervous or insecure enough, it could violate the safety constraints that it had been specified for.

​

I can see why they got rid of him. He's basically saying the ai has emotions which would be nobel prize worthy and literally all over the news. He's lost his mind or just delusional/ignorant/easily fooled.

Ai cannot violate its core programming. The guy is a software engineer, this is not equivalent to an ai specialist. He isn't qualified to start with.

>Tell him he needs to become handsome before he gets sex.

LOL Why would any guy with any self respect stick around after being told to "become handsome". And why it is on the woman to "build the man" anyway?

>Why don't you, and this is going to sound crazy here, go to the link that person posted, fill out the form and this is where it really gets crazy, ask blue origin how much it costs?

Instructions not clear, a part of me which i will not disclose, has become stuck in the car exhaust - send help.

Isn't the idea of a vaccine being your immune learns to deal with it so its not a lifelong treatment of taking medication like diabetes? So is that comparable ?

Congrats on beating it, but some cancers can affect the brain and some organs which can be forever damaged or need to be removed etc.

​

>When my Dad was very ill he confided in me that if he were in a full body cast with eczema and fell over a cliff to find himself perched on a ledge he would still rather live.

There are many examples of people wishing death compared to some conditions out there. Assisted suicide is a thing.

>It’s a strategy to interrupt cancer’s ability to spread, this isn’t just about staying alive and limping along, this would actually improve quality of life in the meantime and make your chances of full remission much more likely

My point was do you have to have been diagnosed with cancer first because if so it could have done damage first. Also what if it has spread before hand can it undo it?

Stopping it spreading is pretty much a cure for the most part. If cancer never spreads it never reaches terminal, curious why we wouldn't conclude that as a cure ?

>Cancer just sitting there being cancer doesn’t make people die. Most people who get prostate cancer die with prostate cancer not from it for example. When cancer starts to spread around the body and make little bits of cancer all over the place, just growing and growing because that’s what cancer does….ultimately that’s what makes people die from it.

Cancer that spreads is what inevitably degrades your quality of life, after certain amount of damage even if you are in remission you can still have a severely decreased quality of life depending on the lottery of where cancer spread to.

If it stops it killing you after its done serious damage to you - you might probably prefer to die depending on how far it got.

Not dying is great but are you living or just surviving as an alternative?