You’re imagining an average person would change their opinions based on a conversation with a single person. In reality people rarely change their strongly held opinions on something based on a single conversation. It takes multiple people normally expressing opinion, people they care about. It happens regularly that a society as a whole can change it’s opinion on something and people still refuse to move their position.
No, I am under no illusion about that. I’ve met many such people, and yes, they are mostly driven by herd mentality. In other words, they’re NPCs, and LLMs are in fact perhaps even a relatively good approximation of what their though processes are like. An actual thinking person, however, can certainly be convinced to change their mind based on a single conversation, if you provide good enough reasoning and sufficient evidence for your claims.
LLMs are actually capable of admitting they are wrong, not everyone is.
That’s because LLMs don’t have any feelings about being wrong. But once your conversation is over, unless the data is being fed back into the training process, they’ll simply forget the entire conversation ever happened and continue arguing from their initial premises.
So yes some models are capable of learning from you, though it might not happen immediately. LLMs in particular I am not sure about, but I don’t think there is anything stopping you from training them this way. I actually think this isn’t a terrible model for mimicking human learning, as we tend to learn the most when we are sleeping, and take into consideration more than a single interaction.
As far as I understand the process, there is indeed nothing that would prevent the maintainers from collecting conversations and feeding them back into the training data to produce the next iteration. And yes, I suppose that would be a fairly good approximation of how humans learn – except that in humans, this happens autonomously, whereas in the case LLMs, I suppose it would require a manual structuring of the data that’s being fed back (although it might be interesting to see what happens if we give an AI the ability to let it decide for itself how it wants to incorporate the new data).
Then why did you say it if you know it’s a caricature? You’re helping to reinforce harmful stereotypes here.
Because I’m only human and therefore lazy and it’s simply faster and more convenient to give a vague approximation of what I intended to say, and I can always follow it up with a clarification (and an apology, if necessary) in case of a misunderstanding. Also, it’s often simply impossible to consider all potential consequences of my words in advance.
There are plenty of autistic people with very strongly held moral and emotional positions. In fact a strong sense of justice as well as black and white thinking are both indicative of autism.
I apologize in advance for saying this, but now you ARE acting autistic. Because instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt and assuming that perhaps I WAS being honest and forthright with my apology, you are doubling down on being right to condemn me for my words. And isn’t that doing exactly the same thing you are accusing me of? Because now YOU’re making a caricature of me by ignoring the fact that I DID apologize and provide clarification, but you present that caricature as the truth instead.
The first half of this comment is pretty reasonable and I agree with you on most of it.
I can’t overlook the rest though.
I apologize in advance for saying this, but now you ARE acting autistic. Because instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt and assuming that perhaps I WAS being honest and forthright with my apology, you are doubling down on being right to condemn me for my words. And isn’t that doing exactly the same thing you are accusing me of? Because now YOU’re making a caricature of me by ignoring the fact that I DID apologize and provide clarification, but you present that caricature as the truth instead.
So would it be okay if I said something like “AI is behaving like someone who is extremely smart but because they are a woman they can’t hold real moral or emotional positions”? Do you think a simple apology that doesn’t show you have learned anything at all would be good enough? I was trying to explain why what you said is actually wrong, dangerous, and trying to be polite about it, but then you double down anyway. Imagine if I tried to defend the above statement with “I apologize in advance but NOW you ARE acting like a woman”. Same concept with race, sexuality, and so on. You clearly have a prejudice about autistic people (and possibly disabled people in general) that you keep running into.
Like bro actually think about what you are saying. The least you could have done is gone back and edited your original comment, and promised to do better. Not making excuses for perpetuating harmful misinformation while leaving up your first comment to keep spreading it.
I didn’t say you were being malicious or ignoring your apology. You were being ignorant though and now stubborn to boot. When you perpetuate both prejudice and misinformation you have to do more than give a quick apology and expect it to be over; you need to show your willingness to both listen and learn and you have done the opposite. All people are the products of their environment and abelism is one of the least recognized forms of discrimination. Even well meaning people regularly run into it, and I am hoping you are one of these.
I regret that we are now having to spend our time on this when we otherwise had an interesting and productive conversation, but I can’t let that stand.
I was trying to explain why what you said is actually wrong, dangerous, and trying to be polite about it, but then you double down anyway.
You did not explain much at all, you just accused me of spreading harmful and dangerous stereotypes. What little explanation you did give (black and white thinking and strongly held beliefs), you immediately put into action by assuming the worst of me. My doubling down was therefore not based on bigotry or prejudice, but empirically observable facts (namely your actual behavior).
Like bro actually think about what you are saying. The least you could have done is gone back and edited your original comment, and promised to do better. Not making excuses for perpetuating harmful misinformation while leaving up your first comment to keep spreading it.
No, I’m not going to edit anything because I can live with the fact that I’ve made a mistake, for which I have offered both a correction and an apology, and I will respectfully and politely ask you once again to please accept it.
All I did in addition was point out that you’re not helping your own cause by exhibiting the very behavior you are blaming me for wrongly alleging. It’s like trying to teach someone that violence isn’t the way to solve your problems by beating them up.
You’re being ridiculous and unreasonable right now. Please stop it.
All I did in addition was point out that you’re not helping your own cause by exhibiting the very behavior you are blaming me for wrongly alleging.
You said autistic people can’t have strong emotional or moral positions. I am doing both by arguing with you. Logic 101.
All I did in addition was point out that you’re not helping your own cause by exhibiting the very behavior you are blaming me for wrongly alleging. It’s like trying to teach someone that violence isn’t the way to solve your problems by beating them up.
What behavior? If I was exhibiting the behavior of not having strong morals or emotions I wouldn’t still be doing this. In fact I am displaying the exact opposite of the behavior you are talking about.
At first I thought you were just slightly ignorant through no fault of your own. Now I am beginning to think you are being intentionally obtuse or just straight up trolling. Unless this is some sort of test. Do you think I am like ChatGPT? Is that what this is?
You said autistic people can’t have strong emotional or moral positions.
Nope, I very clearly agreed with your position that they can and do hold such positions, except they don’t hold them for any reason other than having been deliberately programmed that way.
Basically, their convictions on these matters are not based on an ability to reason things through from first principles, but instead are due simply to an intentional bias in their training data. And in that way, they do indeed resemble an autistic personality, as you are continuing to demonstrate in this conversation.
What behavior? If I was exhibiting the behavior of not having strong morals or emotions I wouldn’t still be doing this. In fact I am displaying the exact opposite of the behavior you are talking about.
Okay, see NOW you are showing signs of actual intelligence in a way that I would not expect from an LLM, because you seem to have realized that your previous approach didn’t work, and you are in fact trying something new. From my experience with LLMs, they simply cannot do that. If you press them too hard on their points they’ll either revert to circular reasoning or collapse into admitting they’re just LLMs and have no fundamental opinions or beliefs.
At first I thought you were just slightly ignorant through no fault of your own. Now I am beginning to think you are being intentionally obtuse or just straight up trolling. Unless this is some sort of test. Do you think I am like ChatGPT? Is that what this is?
You were indeed displaying a lot of the same behavior in your previous comments, and I suppose it was in fact a test to see if I could snap you out of it by making you realize that. So congratulations, it looks like you passed, and you are not in fact as autistic as you think you are :)
See, this was my point all along, that human beings have the ability to self-reflect on their behavior. And they can come up with new behavior on the spot if necessary, without requiring some sort retraining phase. I have not observed this to be the case with LLMs.
Nope, I very clearly agreed with your position that they can and do hold such positions, except they don’t hold them for any reason other than having been deliberately programmed that way.
I mean my position that you hold a bigoted world view is based on reasoning though. You keep comparing autistic people to AI and saying we don’t have reasons for our beliefs, as evidenced by the next paragraph:
Basically, their convictions on these matters are not based on an ability to reason things through from first principles, but instead are due simply to an intentional bias in their training data. And in that way, they do indeed resemble an autistic personality, as you are continuing to demonstrate in this conversation.
So you essentially keep calling autistic people less than human, then wondering why saying “I am sorry” once isn’t good enough. It’s like how you used the “I am only human” line earlier, as if being a bigot is just a simple mistake. Either this is bad faith reasoning or your so bigoted as to be blind to the implications of what you are saying. Like I said try describing any other marginalized group of people the way you describe autistic people and see how it sounds.
So congratulations, it looks like you passed, and you are not in fact as autistic as you think you are :)
I literally have the diagnosis to prove it, but clearly evidence doesn’t matter to you. I should have realized this sooner. Then again I shouldn’t expect anything better from a community who’s whole idea is bases on complaining about AI. Sure lots of misuses of AI, and it sucks to have your job taken away in a shitty capitalist world, but those are human problems, not AI or technology problems. They have human solutions. Becoming a neo-luddite solves nothing.
See, this was my point all along, that human beings have the ability to self-reflect on their behavior. And they can come up with new behavior on the spot if necessary, without requiring some sort of retraining phase. I have not observed this to be the case with LLMs.
Yes well done you understand how LLMs work. There are other systems that don’t work this way and do continuous learning, like a human. We have already discussed this anyway.
I mean my position that you hold a bigoted world view is based on reasoning though. You keep comparing autistic people to AI and saying we don’t have reasons for our beliefs, as evidenced by the next paragraph:
Yes, it is based on reasoning, but it’s not from first principles, rather, it’s from your a priori assumptions that anyone who says anything even mildly critical about autistic people is doing so because of bigotry.
Meanwhile, I have repeatedly stated that this was not at all my intention, but that my goal was in fact demonstrating that even someone like you, with an official diagnosis of autism, has the ability to behave in ways that LLMs currently do not have.
If you were reasoning from first principles, you would at least consider this alternative as a potentially valid hypothesis, and compare the evidence I’ve given in support of it to the evidence that’s informed by your assumption of bigotry.
So you essentially keep calling autistic people less than human, then wondering why saying “I am sorry” once isn’t good enough. It’s like how you used the “I am only human” line earlier, as if being a bigot is just a simple mistake. Either this is bad faith reasoning or your so bigoted as to be blind to the implications of what you are saying. Like I said try describing any other marginalized group of people the way you describe autistic people and see how it sounds.
No, I keep calling LLMs less than human, and I compared their behavior to that of humans with a specific neurodevelopmental disorder (i.e. autism), which is commonly characterized by exhibiting very similar patterns of behavior, namely deficits in reciprocal social communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior (this is straight from the Wikipedia page on autism BTW, before you accuse me of spreading misinformation again), all of which you have amply demonstrated in this conversation, for instance, in your repeated insistence that the only valid explanation for my behavior is bigotry and that the only possible remedy is for me to give up my position and agree with you, to say sorry as many times as it takes for you to believe me, and to make promises of never repeating my behavior ever again.
I’m sorry, but I can’t do that. It restricts my freedom too much and it interferes with my curiosity, because it essentially is a demand of indefinite slavery and servitude to your expectations. You are, in a way, demanding that I behave more autistically myself in order for you to feel better about your own autism. Clearly, that will never cure you of your condition, and perhaps that’s not what you’re after anyways, but I’m certainly not going to help make the world more autistic so you can feel better about it.
Now here’s what I CAN offer: first, if this conversation is excessively difficult and painful for you to have, you can just say so and I’ll promise to stop. I won’t come after you and annoy you if I see you around this forum (or anywhere else on Lemmy), and I can put you on my blocklist to ensure it doesn’t happen by accident (or you can block me if you prefer to be more in control of that, up to you).
Alternatively, we can continue this conversation, and you can look for evidence of whether my behavior is in fact congruent with my stated intention that my goal was not to offend you, but to demonstrate that even someone like you, with an official diagnosis of autism, has abilities that exceed that of an LLM.
If you want, I can even offer an ongoing dialogue (via private messages perhaps) to share some strategies I’ve learned to deal with and overcome autism because while I’ve never received an official diagnosis, I have had many of the same symptoms in the past (still sometimes do), and I’m fairly certain I would have likely been diagnosed with it if my parents had bothered enough to get me to a shrink.
But either way, I am not going to let you abuse me for having had a slip of the tongue and saying something mildly offensive about autistic people. And please don’t drag the rest of the forum into it either because it’s not their fault that I accidentally misspoke.
Yes, it is based on reasoning, but it’s not from first principles, rather, it’s from your a priori assumptions that anyone who says anything even mildly critical about autistic people is doing so because of bigotry.
Ah, now I get it. We aren’t actually working from the same framework. By reasoning from first principles I take it you mean rationality/logic? The problem with that is that mathematics, logic, reasoning, and so on can’t actually prove anything. If we used logic we can determine that no evidence can be definite as things like dreams, hallucinations, illusions and so on exist. The only conclusion you can really reach is that perhaps everything is made up, and you can’t be certain anything is real in other words solipsism. That’s where “first principles” come in I guess. By first principles I assume you mean assumptions, as you won’t get anywhere with logic without some kind of assumption. Since I don’t know what your first principles are I am not going to be able to follow your reasoning, as if I would probably be starting with a different set of assumptions about the world. Generally though I don’t believe logic/reasoning is a good tool for understanding people and things related to people like politics. It’s good for bounded contexts with a well known state or rules like computers, or physical phenomenon. Depending on your worldview humans are either too badly known and too complex for another human to perform logic on them, or are simply not logical to begin with. Since it’s not an effective strategy it’s not something I am interested in using on people. I suspect a lot of disagreements where people are screaming at each other that the other isn’t being logical come from having different assumptions rather than one being illogical.
No, I keep calling LLMs less than human, and I compared their behavior to that of humans with a specific neurodevelopmental disorder (i.e. autism), which is commonly characterized by exhibiting very similar patterns of behavior, namely deficits in reciprocal social communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior (this is straight from the Wikipedia page on autism BTW, before you accuse me of spreading misinformation again), all of which you have amply demonstrated in this conversation, for instance, in your repeated insistence that the only valid explanation for my behavior is bigotry and that the only possible remedy is for me to give up my position and agree with you, to say sorry as many times as it takes for you to believe me, and to make promises of never repeating my behavior ever again.
Okay now you are saying thing with at least some degree of scientific evidence. The evidence for everything else you have said up until now has been pretty much “I made it the fuck up”. I mean to be fair psychology isn’t a real science and diagnostic categories are largely based on intuition rather than neurobiological evidence, so you aren’t that far off. The LLMs I have worked with have been much more demure, they fairly easily admit they made a mistake (and can probably be coerced into doing so even if they actually haven’t), and are willing to reason about political positions very different from their own liberal bias. Pretty much the opposite of stubbornness and debate bros. By being stubborn I am if anything behaving less like an LLM, as LLMs haven’t been stubborn in my experience. Maybe you have had a different experience, if so I would like to here it.
Also the restricted and repetitive behavior thing is about special interests/hyperfixation. It’s not actually applicable here as far as I know.
Alternatively, we can continue this conversation, and you can look for evidence of whether my behavior is in fact congruent with my stated intention that my goal was not to offend you, but to demonstrate that even someone like you, with an official diagnosis of autism, has abilities that exceed that of an LLM.
Was it ever in doubt that an autistic person can beat an LLM? It wasn’t for me. The fact you think it was is kind of offensive in and of itself.
I’m sorry, but I can’t do that. It restricts my freedom too much and it interferes with my curiosity, because it essentially is a demand of indefinite slavery and servitude to your expectations. You are, in a way, demanding that I behave more autistically myself in order for you to feel better about your own autism. Clearly, that will never cure you of your condition, and perhaps that’s not what you’re after anyways, but I’m certainly not going to help make the world more autistic so you can feel better about it.
I am not trying to restrict your freedom of speech here. What you do have to understand is that speech has consequences. For example I can do what I have been doing here and argue against you. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Now here’s what I CAN offer: first, if this conversation is excessively difficult and painful for you to have, you can just say so and I’ll promise to stop. I won’t come after you and annoy you if I see you around this forum (or anywhere else on Lemmy), and I can put you on my blocklist to ensure it doesn’t happen by accident (or you can block me if you prefer to be more in control of that, up to you).
If you want, I can even offer an ongoing dialogue (via private messages perhaps) to share some strategies I’ve learned to deal with and overcome autism because while I’ve never received an official diagnosis, I have had many of the same symptoms in the past (still sometimes do), and I’m fairly certain I would have likely been diagnosed with it if my parents had bothered enough to get me to a shrink.
I don’t think you have a modern understanding of neurodiversity or of neurotypes. A lot things that were once thought to be limitations of autistic people weren’t limitations of autistic people at all. For example it was thought we lacked empathy by some psychologists (and still is) even though now we know of the double empathy problem. It’s a incompatibility/communication issue, not an ability one. I would suggest you do some reading, then you might understand what I am getting at. It’s also understood there are some limitations neurotypical people have that autistic people do not. There was actually an interesting study done which showed that NT people don’t behave morally when they aren’t being watched, unlike autistic people who behave the same regardless of if they are being watched or not. The thing you said about most people behaving like NPCs is potentially one of those limitations of neurotypicals I am talking about here.
It’s a shame you haven’t been evaluated if that’s something you wished for. Do you mind telling me what symptoms you think you might have? I understand if that’s not something you want to discuss publicly or with me in particularly.
There is also a tactic where people ask if someone needs help in a disingenuous way as a form of ad-hominem attack. Essentially calling some crazy while trying to make it sound like they are legitimately concerned. I don’t think you are doing this, at least not intentionally, but I hope you understand that this could be read this way.
But either way, I am not going to let you abuse me for having had a slip of the tongue and saying something mildly offensive about autistic people. And please don’t drag the rest of the forum into it either because it’s not their fault that I accidentally misspoke.
Have you been using text to speech? None of this on my side at least involves tongues or speaking. Yes I know it’s a turn of phrase, but it’s a bad one. With a text forum you can reread, edit, think about what you are saying much more easily than real life speech. I legitimately don’t think they are comparable in behavioral or social terms, and there are social phenomenon that happen online or in writing that don’t in other areas of life.
You also haven’t just said one offensive thing, when pressed you kept saying offensive things. It’s also not just that they are offensive either, it’s that they seem to be based on misinformation and you haven’t given any evidence for them either.
Also abuse you? Calling someone a bigot isn’t abuse. Pushing you down the stairs would be abuse. Calling you racial slurs would be abuse. Psychological manipulation would be abuse. I am not trying to do any of those here. If anything you are unintentionally abusing me.
If you want to take this to DMs that’s fine by me. While I don’t necessarily respect this forum (I mean it’s titled “Fuck AI” for goodness sake), I do understand not wanting to waste other people’s time and that this conversation is probably no longer relevant to this forum.
Ah, now I get it. We aren’t actually working from the same framework. By reasoning from first principles I take it you mean rationality/logic?
Yes, precisely.
The problem with that is that mathematics, logic, reasoning, and so on can’t actually prove anything. If we used logic we can determine that no evidence can be definite as things like dreams, hallucinations, illusions and so on exist. The only conclusion you can really reach is that perhaps everything is made up, and you can’t be certain anything is real in other words solipsism. That’s where “first principles” come in I guess.
Ah yes, the old Cartesian demon who holds your consciousness imprisoned in a dream world making you question whether or not you exist at all. That’s actually a very good, if not the perfect example of what I mean. I’m not sure how familiar you are with Descartes’ Meditations, but outside the well-known realization of “I think, therefore I am”, the method by which he defeats said demon is actually precisely the sort of thing I’m proposing.
To be more practical, what I was trying get at is basically the difference between having and being. Anything you have is likely to be temporary. Anything you are is likely to be constant. So you might ask yourself, are you autistic or do you have a condition called autism? If you can see the difference in perspective each statement offers, then you’ll understand what I was on about.
You see, language is in fact even more basic a tool than reason and logic, because language is how we organize our perception of the world. Reason and logic simply arise out of language because language must have a certain structure in order to be meaningful at all and not just a random collection of words. LLMs clearly have the ability to learn that structure in a way that allows them to produce perfectly understandable sentences in any human language we choose to train them on, but they cannot really produce any good answers for questions that they haven’t been specifically trained on.
Yes, they might still effectively hallucinate an answer anyways, and it might even sound correct, but unless you call them out on it when they start making stuff up, they won’t even notice it happening. Clearly, they cannot actually reason through their own arguments, they simply produce something that imitates the human reasoning process well enough to pass muster approx. 90% of the time or so.
By first principles I assume you mean assumptions, as you won’t get anywhere with logic without some kind of assumption. Since I don’t know what your first principles are I am not going to be able to follow your reasoning, as if I would probably be starting with a different set of assumptions about the world.
As I tried pointing out above, a language model doesn’t actually reason very well, it just imitates what humans do because it operates on prior knowledge acquired by its training. Meanwhile, humans have the ability, as Descartes’ Meditations show, to throw away ALL of their prior assumptions about the world and start over from scratch, so to say, using only as much of their prior knowledge (i.e. the tools of language, logic, and reason) as strictly necessary, and in doing so, might reach new conclusions about the world that were previously inaccessible. Meanwhile an LLM will just make a wild-ass guess that seems to make sense, but often doesn’t.
Generally though I don’t believe logic/reasoning is a good tool for understanding people and things related to people like politics. It’s good for bounded contexts with a well known state or rules like computers, or physical phenomenon. Depending on your worldview humans are either too badly known and too complex for another human to perform logic on them, or are simply not logical to begin with. Since it’s not an effective strategy it’s not something I am interested in using on people. I suspect a lot of disagreements where people are screaming at each other that the other isn’t being logical come from having different assumptions rather than one being illogical.
Humans CAN be wildly illogical, that’s true, but you can choose not to interact with such people (at least on the Internet, IRL it can of course sometimes be more difficult to do). Just like Descartes tests his demon, you can administer tests to them to see if they’re willing to agree on some sort of shared ground rules for having a discussion that may be of mutual benefit, like we did in the previous comments and are continuing to do right now.
Again, a language model doesn’t do that, it operates based on the rules it learned from its training corpus, and those are fairly fixed until you do another round of training that incorporates new information. Autism appears to be somewhat similar in that regard, in the sense that prior knowledge about how the world works (i.e. past exerience) is overweighted in comparison to what’s actually happening (i.e. current experience).
Okay now you are saying thing with at least some degree of scientific evidence. The evidence for everything else you have said up until now has been pretty much “I made it the fuck up”. I mean to be fair psychology isn’t a real science and diagnostic categories are largely based on intuition rather than neurobiological evidence, so you aren’t that far off.
I’m not sure if it’s worth getting lost in the weeds of debating whether psychology is a real science or not, so I’m going to suggest we don’t pursue that train of thought at the moment.
The LLMs I have worked with have been much more demure, they fairly easily admit they made a mistake (and can probably be coerced into doing so even if they actually haven’t), and are willing to reason about political positions very different from their own liberal bias. Pretty much the opposite of stubbornness and debate bros. By being stubborn I am if anything behaving less like an LLM, as LLMs haven’t been stubborn in my experience. Maybe you have had a different experience, if so I would like to here it.
To be fair, anything either of us has to say on this matter would likely fall under the category of circumstantial evidence. I for one certainly haven’t done anything that could be considered scientific in this regard, and I am merely operating based on my memory of conversation I have either personally had, or have seen posted somewhere on the Internet.
Also the restricted and repetitive behavior thing is about special interests/hyperfixation. It’s not actually applicable here as far as I know.
See my reasoning above for why I believe it DOES actually apply. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s why I tried to explain how I arrived at this conclusion.
I don’t think you have a modern understanding of neurodiversity or of neurotypes. A lot things that were once thought to be limitations of autistic people weren’t limitations of autistic people at all.
I will freely admit that I haven’t spent a huge amount of time familiarizing myself with the latest research on this, and I’m likely approaching it from a very different angle than you are, which might explain some of our difficulties communicating about this subject.
For example it was thought we lacked empathy by some psychologists (and still is) even though now we know of the double empathy problem. It’s a incompatibility/communication issue, not an ability one. I would suggest you do some reading, then you might understand what I am getting at. It’s also understood there are some limitations neurotypical people have that autistic people do not.
That’s very interesting, and seems to validate my intuitive belief that autism is a condition that makes certain types of cognition more difficult, but not entirely impossible. Which means that with the right meds and/or mental effort, it may be possible to overcome it or at least greatly reduce the severity of its sypmptoms.
There was actually an interesting study done which showed that NT people don’t behave morally when they aren’t being watched, unlike autistic people who behave the same regardless of if they are being watched or not. The thing you said about most people behaving like NPCs is potentially one of those limitations of neurotypicals I am talking about here.
I have some interesting thoughts about that one, but it would require a rather lengthy explanation on where I’m coming from, so perhaps I’m going to save them for another time.
It’s a shame you haven’t been evaluated if that’s something you wished for. Do you mind telling me what symptoms you think you might have? I understand if that’s not something you want to discuss publicly or with me in particularly.
I’m pretty sure I have had all the symptoms I mentioned from the Wikipedia page at one time or another, and I continue to struggle with them from time to time. I also find it hard to make friends because most people seem to find my way of communicating exceedingly difficult, while I have had great difficulties with their tendency to make smalltalk.
That said, not sure what a diagnosis would do for me now, unless I was trying to get on disability benefits, perhaps. While it might have helped make my life a bit easier in the past, I’m somewhat concerned getting diagnosed now would just turn into an easy excuse for not making an effort.
There is also a tactic where people ask if someone needs help in a disingenuous way as a form of ad-hominem attack. Essentially calling some crazy while trying to make it sound like they are legitimately concerned. I don’t think you are doing this, at least not intentionally, but I hope you understand that this could be read this way.
I’m certainly familiar with this tactic, but I don’t think it HAS to necessarily be used nefariously, as it could just serve as a conversation starter. Perhaps it’s a bit like asking someone to coffee after smashing a brick through their window, but I hope I have demonstrated enough sincerity so far as to not be credibl
(Looks like I hit the character limit for responses, continuing here from the previous comment)
Perhaps it’s a bit like asking someone to coffee after smashing a brick through their window, but I hope I have demonstrated enough sincerity so far as to not be credibly accused of being a troll.
Have you been using text to speech? None of this on my side at least involves tongues or speaking. Yes I know it’s a turn of phrase, but it’s a bad one. With a text forum you can reread, edit, think about what you are saying much more easily than real life speech. I legitimately don’t think they are comparable in behavioral or social terms, and there are social phenomenon that happen online or in writing that don’t in other areas of life.
That’s an interesting thought, but no, I have not, and I did indeed just use the term metaphorically. Yes, I am aware that this isn’t realtime communication and I can in fact take the time to try and edit each comment to complete perfection, but I find that more often than not, when doing so, I end up spending too much time getting lost in the weeds and ultimately never sending it because there’s always more to say or a better way to say it.
At some point, you either have to decide that what you have is good enough (and be prepared to deal with the consequences in case it wasn’t), or you’ll end up with analysis paralysis. I have a lot of experience with the latter, so I’m simply choosing the former more often because that gives me the opportunity to practice a skill that needs improving.
You also haven’t just said one offensive thing, when pressed you kept saying offensive things. It’s also not just that they are offensive either, it’s that they seem to be based on misinformation and you haven’t given any evidence for them either.
Again, I apologize for that, but reactive behavior can be difficult to control, as I’m sure you are aware of. Unfortunately I cannot promise to never say anything offensive without shutting down completely, the best I can do is try to work twice as hard on demonstrating earnesty and goodwill.
Also abuse you? Calling someone a bigot isn’t abuse. Pushing you down the stairs would be abuse. Calling you racial slurs would be abuse. Psychological manipulation would be abuse. I am not trying to do any of those here. If anything you are unintentionally abusing me.
If making a comparison between autism and AI is abuse in your book, I don’t see how calling someone a bigot isn’t. I may have unintentionally said something bigoted, but that doesn’t mean that bigotry is all there is to me. It’s dehumanizing in the same way, especially since I immediately offered a correction and an apology.
If you want to take this to DMs that’s fine by me. While I don’t necessarily respect this forum (I mean it’s titled “Fuck AI” for goodness sake), I do understand not wanting to waste other people’s time and that this conversation is probably no longer relevant to this forum.
Let’s keep it public for now, for the sake of accountability. Also, while I agree that the chance is small that anyone else here is actually interested in following this discourse, it’s certainly not zero. It used to be one of my favorite things about the Internet when I was younger to stumble on interesting rabbit holes like this one, and I have some fond memories of reading long essays, blog posts, or discourses about topics that I only had a superficial interest in, but that ended up completely changing my perspective on things, and I hope to achieve something similar here.
No, I am under no illusion about that. I’ve met many such people, and yes, they are mostly driven by herd mentality. In other words, they’re NPCs, and LLMs are in fact perhaps even a relatively good approximation of what their though processes are like. An actual thinking person, however, can certainly be convinced to change their mind based on a single conversation, if you provide good enough reasoning and sufficient evidence for your claims.
That’s because LLMs don’t have any feelings about being wrong. But once your conversation is over, unless the data is being fed back into the training process, they’ll simply forget the entire conversation ever happened and continue arguing from their initial premises.
As far as I understand the process, there is indeed nothing that would prevent the maintainers from collecting conversations and feeding them back into the training data to produce the next iteration. And yes, I suppose that would be a fairly good approximation of how humans learn – except that in humans, this happens autonomously, whereas in the case LLMs, I suppose it would require a manual structuring of the data that’s being fed back (although it might be interesting to see what happens if we give an AI the ability to let it decide for itself how it wants to incorporate the new data).
Because I’m only human and therefore lazy and it’s simply faster and more convenient to give a vague approximation of what I intended to say, and I can always follow it up with a clarification (and an apology, if necessary) in case of a misunderstanding. Also, it’s often simply impossible to consider all potential consequences of my words in advance.
I apologize in advance for saying this, but now you ARE acting autistic. Because instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt and assuming that perhaps I WAS being honest and forthright with my apology, you are doubling down on being right to condemn me for my words. And isn’t that doing exactly the same thing you are accusing me of? Because now YOU’re making a caricature of me by ignoring the fact that I DID apologize and provide clarification, but you present that caricature as the truth instead.
The first half of this comment is pretty reasonable and I agree with you on most of it.
I can’t overlook the rest though.
So would it be okay if I said something like “AI is behaving like someone who is extremely smart but because they are a woman they can’t hold real moral or emotional positions”? Do you think a simple apology that doesn’t show you have learned anything at all would be good enough? I was trying to explain why what you said is actually wrong, dangerous, and trying to be polite about it, but then you double down anyway. Imagine if I tried to defend the above statement with “I apologize in advance but NOW you ARE acting like a woman”. Same concept with race, sexuality, and so on. You clearly have a prejudice about autistic people (and possibly disabled people in general) that you keep running into.
Like bro actually think about what you are saying. The least you could have done is gone back and edited your original comment, and promised to do better. Not making excuses for perpetuating harmful misinformation while leaving up your first comment to keep spreading it.
I didn’t say you were being malicious or ignoring your apology. You were being ignorant though and now stubborn to boot. When you perpetuate both prejudice and misinformation you have to do more than give a quick apology and expect it to be over; you need to show your willingness to both listen and learn and you have done the opposite. All people are the products of their environment and abelism is one of the least recognized forms of discrimination. Even well meaning people regularly run into it, and I am hoping you are one of these.
I regret that we are now having to spend our time on this when we otherwise had an interesting and productive conversation, but I can’t let that stand.
You did not explain much at all, you just accused me of spreading harmful and dangerous stereotypes. What little explanation you did give (black and white thinking and strongly held beliefs), you immediately put into action by assuming the worst of me. My doubling down was therefore not based on bigotry or prejudice, but empirically observable facts (namely your actual behavior).
No, I’m not going to edit anything because I can live with the fact that I’ve made a mistake, for which I have offered both a correction and an apology, and I will respectfully and politely ask you once again to please accept it.
All I did in addition was point out that you’re not helping your own cause by exhibiting the very behavior you are blaming me for wrongly alleging. It’s like trying to teach someone that violence isn’t the way to solve your problems by beating them up.
You’re being ridiculous and unreasonable right now. Please stop it.
You said autistic people can’t have strong emotional or moral positions. I am doing both by arguing with you. Logic 101.
What behavior? If I was exhibiting the behavior of not having strong morals or emotions I wouldn’t still be doing this. In fact I am displaying the exact opposite of the behavior you are talking about.
At first I thought you were just slightly ignorant through no fault of your own. Now I am beginning to think you are being intentionally obtuse or just straight up trolling. Unless this is some sort of test. Do you think I am like ChatGPT? Is that what this is?
Nope, I very clearly agreed with your position that they can and do hold such positions, except they don’t hold them for any reason other than having been deliberately programmed that way.
Basically, their convictions on these matters are not based on an ability to reason things through from first principles, but instead are due simply to an intentional bias in their training data. And in that way, they do indeed resemble an autistic personality, as you are continuing to demonstrate in this conversation.
Okay, see NOW you are showing signs of actual intelligence in a way that I would not expect from an LLM, because you seem to have realized that your previous approach didn’t work, and you are in fact trying something new. From my experience with LLMs, they simply cannot do that. If you press them too hard on their points they’ll either revert to circular reasoning or collapse into admitting they’re just LLMs and have no fundamental opinions or beliefs.
You were indeed displaying a lot of the same behavior in your previous comments, and I suppose it was in fact a test to see if I could snap you out of it by making you realize that. So congratulations, it looks like you passed, and you are not in fact as autistic as you think you are :)
See, this was my point all along, that human beings have the ability to self-reflect on their behavior. And they can come up with new behavior on the spot if necessary, without requiring some sort retraining phase. I have not observed this to be the case with LLMs.
I mean my position that you hold a bigoted world view is based on reasoning though. You keep comparing autistic people to AI and saying we don’t have reasons for our beliefs, as evidenced by the next paragraph:
So you essentially keep calling autistic people less than human, then wondering why saying “I am sorry” once isn’t good enough. It’s like how you used the “I am only human” line earlier, as if being a bigot is just a simple mistake. Either this is bad faith reasoning or your so bigoted as to be blind to the implications of what you are saying. Like I said try describing any other marginalized group of people the way you describe autistic people and see how it sounds.
I literally have the diagnosis to prove it, but clearly evidence doesn’t matter to you. I should have realized this sooner. Then again I shouldn’t expect anything better from a community who’s whole idea is bases on complaining about AI. Sure lots of misuses of AI, and it sucks to have your job taken away in a shitty capitalist world, but those are human problems, not AI or technology problems. They have human solutions. Becoming a neo-luddite solves nothing.
Yes well done you understand how LLMs work. There are other systems that don’t work this way and do continuous learning, like a human. We have already discussed this anyway.
Yes, it is based on reasoning, but it’s not from first principles, rather, it’s from your a priori assumptions that anyone who says anything even mildly critical about autistic people is doing so because of bigotry.
Meanwhile, I have repeatedly stated that this was not at all my intention, but that my goal was in fact demonstrating that even someone like you, with an official diagnosis of autism, has the ability to behave in ways that LLMs currently do not have.
If you were reasoning from first principles, you would at least consider this alternative as a potentially valid hypothesis, and compare the evidence I’ve given in support of it to the evidence that’s informed by your assumption of bigotry.
No, I keep calling LLMs less than human, and I compared their behavior to that of humans with a specific neurodevelopmental disorder (i.e. autism), which is commonly characterized by exhibiting very similar patterns of behavior, namely deficits in reciprocal social communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior (this is straight from the Wikipedia page on autism BTW, before you accuse me of spreading misinformation again), all of which you have amply demonstrated in this conversation, for instance, in your repeated insistence that the only valid explanation for my behavior is bigotry and that the only possible remedy is for me to give up my position and agree with you, to say sorry as many times as it takes for you to believe me, and to make promises of never repeating my behavior ever again.
I’m sorry, but I can’t do that. It restricts my freedom too much and it interferes with my curiosity, because it essentially is a demand of indefinite slavery and servitude to your expectations. You are, in a way, demanding that I behave more autistically myself in order for you to feel better about your own autism. Clearly, that will never cure you of your condition, and perhaps that’s not what you’re after anyways, but I’m certainly not going to help make the world more autistic so you can feel better about it.
Now here’s what I CAN offer: first, if this conversation is excessively difficult and painful for you to have, you can just say so and I’ll promise to stop. I won’t come after you and annoy you if I see you around this forum (or anywhere else on Lemmy), and I can put you on my blocklist to ensure it doesn’t happen by accident (or you can block me if you prefer to be more in control of that, up to you).
Alternatively, we can continue this conversation, and you can look for evidence of whether my behavior is in fact congruent with my stated intention that my goal was not to offend you, but to demonstrate that even someone like you, with an official diagnosis of autism, has abilities that exceed that of an LLM.
If you want, I can even offer an ongoing dialogue (via private messages perhaps) to share some strategies I’ve learned to deal with and overcome autism because while I’ve never received an official diagnosis, I have had many of the same symptoms in the past (still sometimes do), and I’m fairly certain I would have likely been diagnosed with it if my parents had bothered enough to get me to a shrink.
But either way, I am not going to let you abuse me for having had a slip of the tongue and saying something mildly offensive about autistic people. And please don’t drag the rest of the forum into it either because it’s not their fault that I accidentally misspoke.
Ah, now I get it. We aren’t actually working from the same framework. By reasoning from first principles I take it you mean rationality/logic? The problem with that is that mathematics, logic, reasoning, and so on can’t actually prove anything. If we used logic we can determine that no evidence can be definite as things like dreams, hallucinations, illusions and so on exist. The only conclusion you can really reach is that perhaps everything is made up, and you can’t be certain anything is real in other words solipsism. That’s where “first principles” come in I guess. By first principles I assume you mean assumptions, as you won’t get anywhere with logic without some kind of assumption. Since I don’t know what your first principles are I am not going to be able to follow your reasoning, as if I would probably be starting with a different set of assumptions about the world. Generally though I don’t believe logic/reasoning is a good tool for understanding people and things related to people like politics. It’s good for bounded contexts with a well known state or rules like computers, or physical phenomenon. Depending on your worldview humans are either too badly known and too complex for another human to perform logic on them, or are simply not logical to begin with. Since it’s not an effective strategy it’s not something I am interested in using on people. I suspect a lot of disagreements where people are screaming at each other that the other isn’t being logical come from having different assumptions rather than one being illogical.
Okay now you are saying thing with at least some degree of scientific evidence. The evidence for everything else you have said up until now has been pretty much “I made it the fuck up”. I mean to be fair psychology isn’t a real science and diagnostic categories are largely based on intuition rather than neurobiological evidence, so you aren’t that far off. The LLMs I have worked with have been much more demure, they fairly easily admit they made a mistake (and can probably be coerced into doing so even if they actually haven’t), and are willing to reason about political positions very different from their own liberal bias. Pretty much the opposite of stubbornness and debate bros. By being stubborn I am if anything behaving less like an LLM, as LLMs haven’t been stubborn in my experience. Maybe you have had a different experience, if so I would like to here it.
Also the restricted and repetitive behavior thing is about special interests/hyperfixation. It’s not actually applicable here as far as I know.
Was it ever in doubt that an autistic person can beat an LLM? It wasn’t for me. The fact you think it was is kind of offensive in and of itself.
I am not trying to restrict your freedom of speech here. What you do have to understand is that speech has consequences. For example I can do what I have been doing here and argue against you. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
I don’t think you have a modern understanding of neurodiversity or of neurotypes. A lot things that were once thought to be limitations of autistic people weren’t limitations of autistic people at all. For example it was thought we lacked empathy by some psychologists (and still is) even though now we know of the double empathy problem. It’s a incompatibility/communication issue, not an ability one. I would suggest you do some reading, then you might understand what I am getting at. It’s also understood there are some limitations neurotypical people have that autistic people do not. There was actually an interesting study done which showed that NT people don’t behave morally when they aren’t being watched, unlike autistic people who behave the same regardless of if they are being watched or not. The thing you said about most people behaving like NPCs is potentially one of those limitations of neurotypicals I am talking about here.
It’s a shame you haven’t been evaluated if that’s something you wished for. Do you mind telling me what symptoms you think you might have? I understand if that’s not something you want to discuss publicly or with me in particularly.
There is also a tactic where people ask if someone needs help in a disingenuous way as a form of ad-hominem attack. Essentially calling some crazy while trying to make it sound like they are legitimately concerned. I don’t think you are doing this, at least not intentionally, but I hope you understand that this could be read this way.
Have you been using text to speech? None of this on my side at least involves tongues or speaking. Yes I know it’s a turn of phrase, but it’s a bad one. With a text forum you can reread, edit, think about what you are saying much more easily than real life speech. I legitimately don’t think they are comparable in behavioral or social terms, and there are social phenomenon that happen online or in writing that don’t in other areas of life.
You also haven’t just said one offensive thing, when pressed you kept saying offensive things. It’s also not just that they are offensive either, it’s that they seem to be based on misinformation and you haven’t given any evidence for them either.
Also abuse you? Calling someone a bigot isn’t abuse. Pushing you down the stairs would be abuse. Calling you racial slurs would be abuse. Psychological manipulation would be abuse. I am not trying to do any of those here. If anything you are unintentionally abusing me.
If you want to take this to DMs that’s fine by me. While I don’t necessarily respect this forum (I mean it’s titled “Fuck AI” for goodness sake), I do understand not wanting to waste other people’s time and that this conversation is probably no longer relevant to this forum.
Yes, precisely.
Ah yes, the old Cartesian demon who holds your consciousness imprisoned in a dream world making you question whether or not you exist at all. That’s actually a very good, if not the perfect example of what I mean. I’m not sure how familiar you are with Descartes’ Meditations, but outside the well-known realization of “I think, therefore I am”, the method by which he defeats said demon is actually precisely the sort of thing I’m proposing.
To be more practical, what I was trying get at is basically the difference between having and being. Anything you have is likely to be temporary. Anything you are is likely to be constant. So you might ask yourself, are you autistic or do you have a condition called autism? If you can see the difference in perspective each statement offers, then you’ll understand what I was on about.
You see, language is in fact even more basic a tool than reason and logic, because language is how we organize our perception of the world. Reason and logic simply arise out of language because language must have a certain structure in order to be meaningful at all and not just a random collection of words. LLMs clearly have the ability to learn that structure in a way that allows them to produce perfectly understandable sentences in any human language we choose to train them on, but they cannot really produce any good answers for questions that they haven’t been specifically trained on.
Yes, they might still effectively hallucinate an answer anyways, and it might even sound correct, but unless you call them out on it when they start making stuff up, they won’t even notice it happening. Clearly, they cannot actually reason through their own arguments, they simply produce something that imitates the human reasoning process well enough to pass muster approx. 90% of the time or so.
As I tried pointing out above, a language model doesn’t actually reason very well, it just imitates what humans do because it operates on prior knowledge acquired by its training. Meanwhile, humans have the ability, as Descartes’ Meditations show, to throw away ALL of their prior assumptions about the world and start over from scratch, so to say, using only as much of their prior knowledge (i.e. the tools of language, logic, and reason) as strictly necessary, and in doing so, might reach new conclusions about the world that were previously inaccessible. Meanwhile an LLM will just make a wild-ass guess that seems to make sense, but often doesn’t.
Humans CAN be wildly illogical, that’s true, but you can choose not to interact with such people (at least on the Internet, IRL it can of course sometimes be more difficult to do). Just like Descartes tests his demon, you can administer tests to them to see if they’re willing to agree on some sort of shared ground rules for having a discussion that may be of mutual benefit, like we did in the previous comments and are continuing to do right now.
Again, a language model doesn’t do that, it operates based on the rules it learned from its training corpus, and those are fairly fixed until you do another round of training that incorporates new information. Autism appears to be somewhat similar in that regard, in the sense that prior knowledge about how the world works (i.e. past exerience) is overweighted in comparison to what’s actually happening (i.e. current experience).
I’m not sure if it’s worth getting lost in the weeds of debating whether psychology is a real science or not, so I’m going to suggest we don’t pursue that train of thought at the moment.
To be fair, anything either of us has to say on this matter would likely fall under the category of circumstantial evidence. I for one certainly haven’t done anything that could be considered scientific in this regard, and I am merely operating based on my memory of conversation I have either personally had, or have seen posted somewhere on the Internet.
See my reasoning above for why I believe it DOES actually apply. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s why I tried to explain how I arrived at this conclusion.
I will freely admit that I haven’t spent a huge amount of time familiarizing myself with the latest research on this, and I’m likely approaching it from a very different angle than you are, which might explain some of our difficulties communicating about this subject.
That’s very interesting, and seems to validate my intuitive belief that autism is a condition that makes certain types of cognition more difficult, but not entirely impossible. Which means that with the right meds and/or mental effort, it may be possible to overcome it or at least greatly reduce the severity of its sypmptoms.
I have some interesting thoughts about that one, but it would require a rather lengthy explanation on where I’m coming from, so perhaps I’m going to save them for another time.
I’m pretty sure I have had all the symptoms I mentioned from the Wikipedia page at one time or another, and I continue to struggle with them from time to time. I also find it hard to make friends because most people seem to find my way of communicating exceedingly difficult, while I have had great difficulties with their tendency to make smalltalk.
That said, not sure what a diagnosis would do for me now, unless I was trying to get on disability benefits, perhaps. While it might have helped make my life a bit easier in the past, I’m somewhat concerned getting diagnosed now would just turn into an easy excuse for not making an effort.
I’m certainly familiar with this tactic, but I don’t think it HAS to necessarily be used nefariously, as it could just serve as a conversation starter. Perhaps it’s a bit like asking someone to coffee after smashing a brick through their window, but I hope I have demonstrated enough sincerity so far as to not be credibl
(Looks like I hit the character limit for responses, continuing here from the previous comment)
Perhaps it’s a bit like asking someone to coffee after smashing a brick through their window, but I hope I have demonstrated enough sincerity so far as to not be credibly accused of being a troll.
That’s an interesting thought, but no, I have not, and I did indeed just use the term metaphorically. Yes, I am aware that this isn’t realtime communication and I can in fact take the time to try and edit each comment to complete perfection, but I find that more often than not, when doing so, I end up spending too much time getting lost in the weeds and ultimately never sending it because there’s always more to say or a better way to say it.
At some point, you either have to decide that what you have is good enough (and be prepared to deal with the consequences in case it wasn’t), or you’ll end up with analysis paralysis. I have a lot of experience with the latter, so I’m simply choosing the former more often because that gives me the opportunity to practice a skill that needs improving.
Again, I apologize for that, but reactive behavior can be difficult to control, as I’m sure you are aware of. Unfortunately I cannot promise to never say anything offensive without shutting down completely, the best I can do is try to work twice as hard on demonstrating earnesty and goodwill.
If making a comparison between autism and AI is abuse in your book, I don’t see how calling someone a bigot isn’t. I may have unintentionally said something bigoted, but that doesn’t mean that bigotry is all there is to me. It’s dehumanizing in the same way, especially since I immediately offered a correction and an apology.
Let’s keep it public for now, for the sake of accountability. Also, while I agree that the chance is small that anyone else here is actually interested in following this discourse, it’s certainly not zero. It used to be one of my favorite things about the Internet when I was younger to stumble on interesting rabbit holes like this one, and I have some fond memories of reading long essays, blog posts, or discourses about topics that I only had a superficial interest in, but that ended up completely changing my perspective on things, and I hope to achieve something similar here.