You can fool some of the people all of the time: AIs and deception

Two papers that each consider trust and AIs are of interest, the first is 'Suspicious Minds: The Problem of Trust and Conversational Agents' by Jonas Ivarsson, University of Gothenburg. The second by Rogers and Webber, "Lying About Lying: Examining Trust Repair Strategies After Robot Deception in a High Stakes HRI Scenario".

Artificial intelligence is getting so good at talking that it's hard to tell the difference between humans and machines.

It can now be difficult to know who you're talking to. 'Consequently, the ‘Turing test’ has moved from the laboratory into the wild', as Ivarsson states, If you think you're talking to a human, but it's actually a machine, you might share personal information that you wouldn't want to share with a machine.

This is also a problem because it can erode trust in human-to-human interactions. If people can't tell the difference between humans and machines, they might start to distrust each other.

'Therefore, this study concludes that the proliferation of conversational systems, fueled by artificial intelligence, may have unintended consequences, including impacts on human–human interactions.'

The issues that Ivarsson explored are only exacerbated by the topic of the second paper, as Webber states in this:

"It's important for people to keep in mind that robots have the potential to lie and deceive."

This study looked at how humans react when a robot lies to them. The study found that people are more likely to change their behavior if they are told that the robot is lying, and that an apology without acknowledging intentional deception is the best way to repair trust.

Designers and policy makers need to consider GPTs current abilities to deceive and what the implications are, even before we get to robots.

In two to three years time, as manufacturers imbue more and more of your everyday technology with AI 'assistants', your phones, cars, TVs, etcetera, and you realise that they are lying to you, what will the human response be? Will their apologies be sufficient?

Comments

The AI Dilemma and "Gollem-Class" AIs

From the Center for Humane Technology Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin discuss how existing A.I. capabilities already pose catastrophic risks to a functional society, how A.I. companies are caught in a race to deploy as quickly as possible without adequate safety measures, and what it would mean to upgrade our institutions to a post-A.I. world. This presentation is from a private gathering in San Francisco on March 9th with leading technologists and decision-makers with the ability to influence the future of large-language model A.I.s. This presentation was given before the launch of GPT-4. One of the more astute critics of the tech industry, Tristan Harris, who has recently given stark evidence to Congress. It is worth watching both of these videos, as the Congress address gives a context of PR industry and it's regular abuses. "If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their

Beware the Orca, the challenge to ChatGPT and Palm2 is here

So Google's 'we have no moat' paper was correct. If you train an LLM wisely then it's cost effective and cheap to produce a small LLM that is able to compete or even beat established, costly LLMs, as Microsoft has just found. It's another excellent video from AI Explained, who goes through some of the training procedures, which I won't get into here. Orca, is a model that learns from large foundation models (LFMs) like GPT-4 and ChatGPT by imitating their reasoning process. Orca uses rich signals such as explanations and complex instructions to improve its performance on various tasks. Orca outperforms other instruction-tuned models and achieves similar results to ChatGPT on zero-shot reasoning benchmarks and professional and academic exams. The paper suggests that learning from explanations is a promising way to enhance model skills. Smaller models are often overestimated in their abilities compared to LFMs, and need more rigorous evaluation methods. Explana

What is happening inside of the black box?

Neel Nanda is involved in Mechanistic Interpretability research at DeepMind, formerly of AnthropicAI, what's fascinating about the research conducted by Nanda is he gets to peer into the Black Box to figure out how different types of AI models work. Anyone concerned with AI should understand how important this is. In this video Nanda discusses some of his findings, including 'induction heads', which turn out to have some vital properties. Induction heads are a type of attention head that allows a language model to learn long-range dependencies in text. They do this by using a simple algorithm to complete token sequences like [A][B] ... [A] -> [B]. For example, if a model is given the sequence "The cat sat on the mat," it can use induction heads to predict that the word "mat" will be followed by the word "the". Induction heads were first discovered in 2022 by a team of researchers at OpenAI. They found that induction heads were present in

Charting the emergence of AGI?

Search This Blog