• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I give you… “The Grant Money Printing machine!”

    Need a grant? Create a disease and submit a paper. Then write a grant asking for money to solve your invented disease.

    • Jankatarch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you want research grants there is already a glitch for that. You just jam “AI” in your research and suddenly government cares about progress now.

    • adr1an@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Wait until you hear about paper mills… They were here long before LLMs. This can only get worse… Unless, “we” do something. Or journals themselves do it. Not sure what or how, but better audited ways. Even academia itself could start by valuing more the work of reviewers.

  • DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    2 months ago

    Before anyone shits on these scientists it said over and over again it was made up and that officially the USS Enterprise labs were used to make this discovery.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s pretty much what local ML is.

      If open weights LLMs take off, and business users realize they can just finetune tiny specialized models for stuff, OpenAI is toast. All of Big Tech’s bets are. It’s why they keep fanning the “AGI” lie, and why they’re pushing for regulation so hard, why they’re shoving LLMs where they just don’t fit and harping on safety.

      • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Ok, but who is making those “open weight” models though? Individuals don’t really have the resources to run these huge scraping operations, so they’re often still corporate releases with fake open source branding.

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Corporate, for now.

          Thing is, once they’re out there, they’re free utilities, and they can’t be taken back.

          Also, they don’t really need to aggressively scrape the internet. There are many good public datasets now, and the Chinese are already making excellent use of synthetic dataset generation on (relative) shoestring budgets. Also, several nations and other large organizations are already funding open model efforts, but they just haven’t had the opportunity to catch up yet.

    • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Pretty much is, they’re spending hundreds of billions on a dream (not having to pay workers) that doesn’t work, until they repurpose those datacentres to remove personal computing.

      Fortunately datacentres are by design concentrated in space and therefore rather vulnerable.

  • WhyIHateTheInternet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    My friends and I did that in high school. Kinda. We made up new words for “awesome” to get people to start saying it. We started with “bumpenis” like that song is bumpenis. Really we were just getting people to say bum penis. It worked too. We are all just walking talking LLMs.

  • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    I wonder if we got a group together to go on reddit and stack overflow and give really wrong programming answers and vote them to the top, if Claude would start sucking? They could always just revert to a previous model and it would probably be too hard to get enough people and content to have an effect with such large training sets. Maybe if you use ai? Lol

    • Napster153@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Didnn’t something similar happen to Grok but ended up with it generating a ton of CSAM material that circulated twitter?

  • pemptago@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    I imagine this is how it’ll work for stage 2 of Ai enshittifation. They’ll just add a bunch of garbage upstream about a brand or product marketers are paying to push and it’ll infect a bunch of outputs downstream.

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      they do the same to protect doctors from malpractice lawsuits. there is a (laughably peer reviewed) study that claims tylenol and morphine are equally effective at pain management.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Good. This shows plainly how LLMs don’t think, don’t truly understand anything, and have no critical ability to do introspection or fact-checking. It seems the only way to teach the world of these things is to make it impossible to ignore via absurd demonstrations like this. If the “AI” well must be poisoned in order to wake people up, I’m all for it.

  • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t see this as a problem, rather, an opportunity to study information & disinformation propogation.

      • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        But not really a NEW problem. We knew LLM’s are trained on aggregate human data. We know aggregate human data is fundamentally flawed, inconsistent, unreliable, etc.

        Like was there a point at which people just decided, nah AI is just plain accurate? Or is that just what morons always thought despite the permanent warnings plastered everywhere saying THIS AI CAN MAKE MISTAKES, CHECK EVERYTHING!

  • Teppa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    AI’s dont know that birds arent real, or that sometimes the pressure from being under water for an extended period of time can cause fish to explode.

  • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    “When the text looks professional and written as a doctor writes, there’s an increase in the hallucination rates,” says Omar.

    Huh, now there’s something we have in common. Trying to make sense of something a doctor wrote makes me feel like I’m hallucinating, too. Is there a class in medical school on “Illegible Handwriting,” or is it just a coincidence?

    In all seriousness though, I wish I could be surprised by AI failing at this. We have entered the Misinformation Age. There’s no closing Pandora’s Box, though this time I can’t find the “hope” that’s supposed to be in the bottom of it. Society would have to turn real skeptical real fast, but I’ve met enough people to know that such a tranformation is going to take time - and by “time” I mean “decades or longer.” With AI already here, we’d have to wise up immediately… but I fear that humanity isn’t mature enough for that yet.

  • CovfefeKills@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is firealarm type stuff that’s what they are meant to do. There has been the alarms like this since gpt-2 they are literally just “here is a sandbox environment, break out and take over the world.” you can easily imagine some crazy asshole out there who would try to use these things for arbitrary evil. So they do it first to see if it is possible. The systems up until now have been famously incompetent so a competent system is genuinely scary.

  • magnue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Wouldn’t humans do the same thing if someone literally writes lies on the internet?

    • Kacarott@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      If it were convincing lies made to deceive, then sure. But in this case the papers were deliberately made to be immediately obviously fake, to anyone actually reading them.

      So I guess the question would be “would humans do the same thing if someone literally writes obvious jokes on the internet?”

  • bookmeat@fedinsfw.app
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Without grounding, correctness is not defined. Hallucination is not a bug that scaling can fix. It is the structural consequence of operating without concepts. – Gregory Coppola