Hacker News Reader

Comment by pibaker | Hacker News Reader

I feel this reflects a deeper problem with letting AI do any kind of decision making. They have no real world experience. They feel no real world consequences. They have no real stake in any decision they make.

Human societies get to control their members' actions by imposing real life consequences. A company can fire you, a partner can divorce you, the state can jail you, the public can shame you. None of these works on the current crop of LLM based AI systems, which as far as I can tell are only trained to handle very narrow tasks where they don't need to even worry about keeping themselves alive. How do you make AIs work in a society? I don't know. Maybe the best move is to not play the game.

View on HN

Maybe the best move is to not play the game.

This is the path Apple has taken.

But the best possible move is to make money from it. Short the "Magnificent 7" stocks --- buy "SQQQ" ETF --- when the time is *right*.

Ah, just time the collapse perfectly. Wish I'd thought of that ;)

Timing it "perfectly" is impossible unless you're psychic or very lucky.

The good news is you don't have to be perfect. You can be late and still make money. The important thing is to be prepared and ready to pounce.

When AI blows, it's going to take the whole stock market down with it.

> They have no real world experience. They feel no real world consequences. They have no real stake in any decision they make.

Why do you let politicians do any kind of decision making?

Politicians can be voted out, forced to resign, sometimes removed from office and even occasionally jailed. They also inhabit the same world a nuclear war would make much less nicer.

Nuclear war aside (we're talking any kind of decision making here) politicians face very small consequences for harmful decisions, usually at most losing that high-paid job (and getting another high-paid job).

Or make them part of the consequences. Give them skin in the game. “Let’s not use AI” is dumb and impossible

They have no real stake in any decision they make.

And they are not human. Not even a sociopath or psychopathic human. At best they might be able to estimate casualties. LLM's probably can't even reach the logic conclusion of the fictional WOPR Joshua from the movie Wargames [1].

Make LLM's win every game of tic-tac-toe and see if it reaches the same conclusion of WOPR. [1]

...

Edit: (Answering my own question) From Gemini:

Yes, many LLMs (GPT-4, Claude 3, Llama 3) have been tested on Tic-Tac-Toe, and they generally perform poorly, often playing at or below the level of random chance. While they can understand the rules, they struggle with spatial reasoning, often trying to place a piece in an occupied spot, forgetting to block opponents, or failing to win.

If LLM's can't even figure out tic-tac-toe then surely do not give these things the ability to launch any kind of weapon. Not even rubber bands.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s93KC4AGKnY [video][6m][tic-tac-toe]

Which makes them so great for making difficult (often bad) decisions – it wasn't me, it was the "objective" and "neutral" "superintelligence" which I totally didn't give a suggestive prompt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com