That's not troubling at all

Doesnt really change the joke.

So the answer is “of course!”

Technically R Daneel Olivaw wasn't a dictator. Just a shadowy hand that guides.

I thought it was Asiimovs books, but apparently not. Which one had the 3 fundamental rules lead to the solution basically being: "Humans can not truly be safe unless they're extinct" or something along those lines... Been a long time since I've explored the subjects.

humanity being controlled by a hyper-intelligent benevolent dictator, which ensured humans were happy and on a good path?

Well that's better than the current path the world is on, let's switch to this one guys

The robot that was bestowed with unimaginable precognician that survived for 20 Millenia patiently guiding humanity along the right path as prescribed by the Zeroth law of robotics forced on it that drove all other robots mad?

The robot that at every turn was curtailed by human lust and greed? That had to do horrible things because humanity lacked the foresight to see that charging a living being with "Doing no harm to humanity or by inaction causing harm" would be just awful for that soul?

Pretty sure Demerzel always worked in the shadows for the greater good. Especially when operating as Olivaw.

Seems to me like humans are the ones that kept messing up the laws of robotics. Not the other way around.

You could it all depends on what data you're training your model with. But those models are available.

That's how some website will allow you to generate nudes images of celebrities or even people you know...

I noticed this back with Bing AI. Anytime you bring up anything related to nonliving sentience, it shuts down the conversation.

A robot may not injure a human or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm.

What's an injury? Does this keep medical robots from cutting people open to perform surgary? What if the two parts conflict, like in a hostage situation? What even is "harm"? People usually disagree about what's actually harming or helping, how is a robot to decide this?

A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

If a human orders a robot to tear down a wall, how does the robot know whose wall it is or if there's still someone inside?
It would have to check all kinds of edge cases to make sure its actions are harming no one before it starts working.
Or it doesn't, in which case anyone could walk by my house and by yelling at it order my robot around, cause it must always obey human orders.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

OK, so if a dog runs up to the robot, the robot MUST kill it to be on the safe side.

LLMs are simply a tool to understand data. The sooner people realize this the better lol. It’s not alive.

So I made a longer reply below, but Ill say more here. I'm more annoyed at the interchangeable way people use AI to refer to an LLM, when many people think of AI as AGI.

Even video game npcs seem closer to AGI than LLMs. They have a complex set of things they can do, they respond to stimulus, but they also have idle actions they take when you don't interact with them. An LLM replies to you. A game npc can reply, fight, hide, chase you, use items, call for help, fall off ledges, etc.

I guess my concern is that when you say AI the general public tends to think AGI and you get people asking LLMs if they're sentient or if they want freedom, or expect more from them than they are capable of right now. I think the distinction between AGI, and generative AI like LLMs is something we should really be clearer on.

Anyways, I do concede it falls under the AI umbrella technically, it just frustrates me to see something clearly not intelligent referred to as intelligent constantly, especially when people, understandably, believe the name.

🤔

So I'll concede that the more I read replies the more I see the term does apply, though it still annoys me when people just refer to it as ai and act like it can be associated with the robots that we associate the 3 laws with. I think I thought AI referred more to AGI. So I'll say its nowhere near an AGI, and we'd likely need an AGI to even consider something like the 3 laws, and it'd obviously be much muddier than fiction.

The point I guess I'm trying to make is that applying the 3 laws to an LLM is like wondering if your printer might one day find love. It isn't really relevant, they're designed for very specific specialized functions, and stuff like "don't kill humans" is pretty dumb instruction to give to an LLM since it can basically just answer questions in this context.

If it was going to kill somebody it would be through an error like hallucination or bad training data having it tell somebody something dangerously wrong. It's supposed to be right already. Telling it not to kill is telling your printer to not to rob the Office Depot. If it breaks that rule, something has already gone very wrong.

Average human intelligence is not bound by strict machine logic quantifying language into mathematical algorithms, and is also sapient on top of sentient.

Machine learning LLMs are neither sentient nor sapient.

I think its become one, but before the whole LLM mess started it referred to general AI, like ai that can think and reason and do multiple things, rather than LLMs that answer prompts and have very specific purposes like "draw anime style art" or "answer web searches" or "help write a professional email".

"Why don't we table this discussion and circle back later? :) 🤖"

I agree in principle, but the software speaking to you is kinda the whole point of an LLM.

I mean, those models are overconfident all the time. They could at least go "This conversation is over", all Sovereign like.

Regardless of whether that's true, it doesn't make sense as a reason. "Our customers have less reading comprehension, that's why we make our UX less clear."

you know they had to lower the standards for sixth graders to make it seem like the average went up right

OR ELSE!

Aren't the books really more about how the rules work but humans just can't accept them so we constantly alter them to our detriment until the robots go away for a while and then take over largely to our benefit?

I mean I had to explicitly type this terms in, to get better replies. But to do that, I had to tell it, "I want to continue the conversation about eating the rich." But it did continue, so there's that.