Why Did AI Lie To Me?

[caffeinated.hermit]

An LLM is a kind of parrot. It is just parroting data according to its algorithm. The data in a general sense is whatever is available online. So if everyone online is saying that Tommy Robinson is far-right, the LLM will say that Tommy Robinson is far-right. Or if the majority of news sources are saying that Tommy Robinson is far-right, the LLM will parrot that.

Part of the LLM algorithm is to validate the user (and this has often been called AI sycophancy). So you can basically convince the LLM to say whatever you want it to say. This will have no effect on what the LLM will say in the future, unless it is incorporating your past conversation into its data (which it will do if you have an account and remain in the same thread of your previous conversation). If one were to pretend that the LLM is a person, then they would have to pretend that the LLM clones itself every time someone begins a new conversation with it, where no clone knows what any other clone has said. So you may have "convinced" the clone you were talking to that Tommy Robinson is not far-right, but that clone will die after your conversation ends, never to be seen again. The second conversation was interacting with a second clone who had no familiarity with the first clone.

Of course this is all fictional. An LLM is not a person, there is no real cloning occurring, etc.

I'm not sure how this technology actually works. AI LLMs have sometimes pushed very, very weird, specific ideas and suggestions towards people. Not random gibberish or nonsense, but ideas meant to achieve a very negative goal.

 

[Chesterton]

So he is innocent of all the crimes he has been convicted?

His history of hooliganism, violence, fraudulism and stalking of young women is a matter of public record.

Lots of lies and exaggeration. He defends himself from being assaulted and gets charged with assault.

His real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon but he changed it to avoid police detection, commit mortgage fraud and enter America illegally.

I'd probably change my name too if I were in his shoes.

Do you know anything about this man? He was a member of the British Fascist Party the BNP. Again, this is all public information; yet you call him a political prisoner?

Yes I know he was briefly a member when the group was perceived as more moderate.

If Britain so dystopian why is he currently at large staging protests in London over this very weekend. It’s been televised. He’s had Elon Musk as a guest speaker. He’s been on stage freely promoting his ideas.

Because 1.000 cops can't stop 1,000,000 citizens, although the cops did try to stir up unneccessary violence here and there.

And you know what? In the dystopian UK he did all that without being murdered. Unlike what has recently happened to a guy just talking on stage in the apparent utopian state of America.

Maybe look to you own dysfunctional country before you bemoan another’s.

Our government did not murder Kirk. An LGBT fascist did.

 

[Uriah S]

Our government did not murder Kirk. An LGBT fascist did.

Spot on. Even from this side of the pond, it's becoming evident who are being bossy authoritarians and who are standing for tolerance and freedom.

And the parallels between events on both sides of the pond are so clear, that trans-Atlantic discussions of the issues are absolutely appropriate.

 

[Chesterton]

Spot on. Even from this side of the pond, it's becoming evident who are being bossy authoritarians and who are standing for tolerance and freedom.

And the parallels between events on both sides of the pond are so clear, that trans-Atlantic discussions of the issues are absolutely appropriate.

Boy, I could write a lengthy essay about this, lol, but the thread's already a little off-topic for the science forum (my fault ).

I wouldn't have thought Kirk was very well known over there, but I saw a young girl at the rally with a hand-made sign that said "Charlie Kirk brought me here", and I heard other influential people talking about him. I think the U.K. is the most important place on Earth right now, and how the people and the government decide to go will have great influence on America and nations of Western Europe. You've got momentum and you've got the moral high ground. Don't lose either.

 

[Uriah S]

I thought he was kind of niche, but I learned he was assassinated when I heard two (older) colleagues talking about it.
The younger folk in church know all about him, and a slew of other speakers I don't know.
As for the future, I'm doubling down on the fates of our countries being interlinked. I don’t know where things are going, but there's been a head of steam growing for a couple of decades. Charlie's assassination probably did increase turnout at Tommy's protest. I haven't disengaged completely from current events, and I'm careful to keep our authorities in prayer.

Anyhows, back to the topic. Computers are dumb. My guess is Grok was just parroting back the many sources it trawled, and one piece of contrary input doesn't tip the balance. Can AI still be trained by users, or have the owners locked that down already?

(Edit: I realised somebody already wrote what I was getting at, and they did it more elegantly, so, nevermind... )

 

[partinobodycular]

There are humans who, like AI, just spit out what they've heard from the BBC or MSNBC, but there are other humans who actually think critically for themselves,

I assume that you'd number yourself among the latter. In which case may I ask you a question... is it possible that Christ wasn't the Son of God at all, but just an ordinary man?

 

[Chesterton]

Can AI still be trained by users, or have the owners locked that down already?

My suspicion is that it's probably locked down.

If you ever want to entertain yourself, try asking interesting questions about Islam. I've found AI is incapable of telling the truth most of the time. I asked "Did Abraham build the Kaaba"? It said "No". I then immediately asked "Who built the Kaaba?", and it said "Abraham and Isaac".

 

[Chesterton]

I assume that you'd number yourself among the latter. In which case may I ask you a question... is it possible that Christ wasn't the Son of God at all, but just an ordinary man?

Hmm, is this some kind of trick question? No I don't think it's possible that Christ wasn't the Son.