• very_well_lost@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    It refers to when an LLM will in some way try to deceive or manipulate the user interacting with it.

    I think this still gives the model too much credit by implying that there’s any sort of intentionally behind this behavior.

    There’s not.

    These models are trained on the output of real humans and real humans lie and deceive constantly. All that’s happening is that the underlying mathematical model has encoded the statistical likelihood that someone will lie in a given situation. If that statistical likelihood is high enough, the model itself will lie when put in a similar situation.

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Obviusly.

      And like hallucinations, it’s undesired behavior that proponents off LLMs will need to “fix” (a practical impossibility as far as I’m concerned, like unbaking a cake).

      But how would you use words to explain the phenomenon?

      “LLMs hallucinate and lie” is probably the shortest description that most people will be able to grasp.

      • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        But how would you use words to explain the phenomenon?

        I don’t know, I’ve been struggling to find the right ‘sound bite’ for it myself. The problem is that all of the simplified explanations encourage people to anthropomorphize these things, which just further fuels the toxic hype cycle.

        In the end, I’m unsure which does more damage.

        Is it better to convince people the AI “lies”, so they’ll stop using it? Or is it better to convince people AI doesn’t actually have the capacity to lie so that they’ll stop shoveling money onto the datacenter altar like we’ve just created some bullshit techno-god?