ChatGPT installed in a real consumer grade robot. What could possibly go wrong?

[Ace-Garageguy]

 

[Big Messer]

Keep a shotgun close just in case...

[Trainwreck]

All it's going to take is one independent thought. 

[MeatMan]

Scary stuff!

[MeatMan]

17 hours ago, Trainwreck said:

All it's going to take is one independent thought. 

Dunno if you ever heard of the sci fi series "Space, Above & Beyond" where the independent thought was "take a chance", which led to the Silicate Wars when the AIs adopted gambling as a determinant of decision-makiing. 😄

[Trainwreck]

The independent thought I spoke of was self preservation, this could happen as a result of humans trying to shut down the machines when we realize that they are becoming too intelligent and too numerous to control. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

3 minutes ago, Trainwreck said:

The independent thought I spoke of was self preservation, this could happen as a result of humans trying to shut down the machines when we realize that they are becoming too intelligent and too numerous to control. 

This has been discussed at length within the AI community, and there's already evidence to support the likelihood of such an event happening in reality.

[Trainwreck]

When the first AI driven computer or robot in some obscure lab one day says "no" that's when things are gonna get serious.

I hope I'm not around to witness that .

Edited 3 hours ago by Trainwreck

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, Trainwreck said:

When the first AI driven computer or robot in some obscure lab one day says "no" that's when things are gonna get serious.

I hope I'm not around to witness that .

What I find so interesting is that in 1942, Isaac Asimov foresaw this, and proposed the Three Laws of Robotics that were deeply imbedded in the programming code, so integral that they could not be overridden.

Unfortunately, AI systems based on LLMs don't actually understand context, so these behavioral limitations don't work as Asimov envisioned.

More's the pity.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws

Edited 2 hours ago by Ace-Garageguy
punctiliousness

[Trainwreck]

When I first saw Terminator I dismissed the thought of that sort of thing ever happening. It was I Robot (which mentioned Asimov's laws) that convinced me that the whole scenario was indeed a plausible series of events.

That one shook me a bit. (Starting to look like life imitating art)

Edited 1 hour ago by Trainwreck

[Fat Brian]

2 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

What I find so interesting is that in 1942, Isaac Asimov foresaw this, and proposed the Three Laws of Robotics that were deeply imbedded in the programming code, so integral that they could not be overridden.

Unfortunately, AI systems based on LLMs don't actually understand context, so these behavioral limitations don't work as Asimov envisioned.

More's the pity.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws

Its interesting how we thought robots would be versus how they're turning out. Asimov's laws require the knowledge of what a human is, what harm means, what a law is, and it means to obey. The current LLMs don't actually know anything so giving them hard directions that last doesn't seem to work the way we think it would. 

When people think about AI they think about the computer in Star Trek that has a huge database of facts but its more like asking your high friend how stuff works.