I'm reminded of the technical series of books like _JavaScript: The Good Parts_.
One could imagine that unaligned LLMs could be valuable as in Minority Report or for writing addictive video games -- characterize the distribution of deviant behaviors with high fidelity, while sampling unobserved excited states too. One might argue that there is a mapping from the number of hidden states of a Boltzmann machine needed to capture such a distribution to the possible redeeming value for these behaviors. Low complexity fixations should result in a law enforcement response, but high complexity might be suggestive of something more. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 12:11 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] affinity for chatbots The conversations described by glen as well as those previously posted take place with 'sanitized' versions of chatbots: i.e., those that have, to a degree, removed racist/sexist bias, but also entire chunks of subject matter. Seemingly within seconds of the first releases of chatAIs, users were using them to create conversational partners focused on topics for which they were not intended and, supposedly, can no longer be engaged. Examples: a person that 'created' a domme capable of satisfying his submissive desires better than a live person (fewer inhibitions); the person who was supplied "proofs" of lizard aliens ruling the world; and how to indulge in serial killing without being caught. [I did see these examples and are pretty sure they actually existed. The guy with the domme tried to commercialize it with a web site where you entered your preferred kinks and the AI indulged your fantasy - words only - for a fee.] I am probably the only one curious as to what might have been, had the AIs not been censored by their creators. davew On Fri, Sep 13, 2024, at 1:34 PM, steve smith wrote: > Glen - > > I appreciate your speaking more directly to these thoughts/ideas than > we have been here. I have been moved by your assertions about vocal > (linguistic?) grooming since you first introduced them. I am > recently finished reading Sopolsky's "Primate's Memoir" which adds > another dimension/parallax-angle (for me) on intertribal behaviour > among primates beyond the more familiar Chimpanzee and of late Bonobo. > > I am just now also just finishing (re-reading parts) of Kara Swisher's > "Burn Book" which covers her own experience/perspective across TechBro > culture where a pretty significant amount of Alpha/Beta pecking order > exhibits itself and we see the current rallying of (too) much of that > sub culture to MAGA/Trump fealty. > >> We've talked about how some of us really enjoy simulated conversation >> with chatbots ... "really" is an understatement ... it looks more >> like a fetish or a kink to me ... too intense to be well-described as >> "enjoyment". Anyway, this article lands in that space, I think: > > I will confess to having an "appreciation" for the "simulated > conversation to which you refer... It might have reached kink or > fetish levels for a little while when I was first exploring the full > range of GPT 3.5 and then 4.0 available to me. I've referred to GPT > as my "new bar friend" or maybe to the point a little like finding a > new watering hole with a number of regulars who I can find a > qualitatively new conversation. > > I've mostly moved past that fascination... I'm not as surprised by > these "new friends" as I was for the first few months of dropping in > on them. > >> It seems to me that some arbitrary thought can play at least a few >> roles to a person. It may provide: 1) a kernel of identity to >> establish us vs. them, 2) fodder for feigning engagement at cocktail >> parties and such, and 3) a foil for world-construction >> (collaboratively or individually). >> >> (1) and (2) wouldn't necessarily mechanize refinement of the thought, >> including testing, falsification, etc. But (3) would. For me, (2) >> does sometimes provide an externalized medium by which I can change >> my mind. Hence my affinity for argument, especially with randos at >> the pub. But it seems like coping and defense mechanisms like >> mansplaining allow others to avoid changing their minds with (2). > > Like you (only very differently in detail I am sure) I tend to push my > chatbot "friends" until they begin to contradict me or argue with me. > While some of the discussions involve "worldbuilding" I think of it > more as "world narrowing"? In my case meaning, helping me think and > talk my way through a *subset* of the possibilities I see on "solving > a problem" which might be more appropriately framed as building a > problem-space world and then narrowing (or even bending) the solution > space away from the conventional. > > For example discussing (at excruciating length) the design and > construction of a modest addition on my home, starting with fairly > conventional big-box-available industrial solutions but evolving > toward using locally sourced, somewhat more natural materials > (soilcrete, rough-sawn timbers from nearby, scoria/perlite for > in-ground insulation, mycelium (grown in loose cellulose, oat-straw or > hemp-fibers) roof and wall insulation, etc. Most of my DIY friends > are capable of engaging in this but their idiosyncratic (as opposed to > my own) preferences (fetishes and fears) tend to taint the dialog a > little. GPT *does* try to channel me back to the conventional, > offering reasons why I really > *should* consider using the most conventional materials/methods. > Nevertheless if I speak in reasonable and coaxing tones it will > usually acknowledge that their are contexts wherein my ideas might be > viable (though there always remains a skeptical bias) and in fact > helps me split hairs on just what might be the contexts where my ideas > *are* viable... > >> >> Another concept I've defended on this list is the vocal grooming >> hypothesis. If a lonely person engages a chatbot as a simple analogy >> to picking lice from others' fur, then their engagement with the bot >> probably lands squarely in (1) and (2). But if the person is simply >> an introverted hermit who has trouble co-constructing the world with >> others (i.e. *not* merely vocal grooming), then the chatbot does real >> work, allowing the antisocial misfit to do real work that could later >> be expressed in a form harvestable by others. I wonder what humanity >> could have harvested if Kaczynski or Grothendieck in his later years >> had had access to appropriately tuned chatbots. > I'd like to think the chatbots I hang out with might have helped them > talk themselves *out* of their most acute anti-social activities... > but maybe not. > > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
