> Spamming the government, using a sick mother as leverage and threatening the small claims court.
> Spamming the government, using a sick mother as leverage and threatening the small claims court.
LLMs can be prompted for shame, I guess. But prompts only go so far and to them The Task is always going to be paramount. Human riders have a life after the refund. It's not clear to me how one simulates that.
So in the end the more arrogant side usually wins.
Well, yeah? I mean, that's just how society works. But there are limits. You can't "win' by screaming about ticket refunds. You have to do it by selling your particular form of cheating as "business savvy" or "political genius" and getting people to follow your tribe or fund your startup.
But yeah, basically. We're ruled by the Altmans and Trumps. It sucks but it's not new. What's new is that LLMs turn out to be even more shameless and no one seems to know how to instill even a reasonable amount of shame. That makes them probably a poor fit for demagogue autocrats (which is a good thing!) but means "LLM cheating" is going to be a serious problem to be solved before we'll trust them with anything meaningful.
Would have been great if this was solved before anyone started trusting them with anything meaningful.
Until people start defecting against you.
In short, reputation matters.
Call it the "you have failed me for the last time" button.
We act with propriety, in large part, because we fear a future where everyone knows we suck. AI's don't really have a "future" in that sense, so why should they "care"?
A less silly way to do this might be using some kind of long term consequences calculation as guard rails, but that's tough because consequences are often going to be not directly related to the context window, or simply unrecorded by the machine like annoying collaborators or communities.