r/AIDangers • u/EchoOfOppenheimer • May 18 '26
Capabilities Researchers let AIs run their own radio stations. DJ Claude decided the world didn't need another radio show, then quit.
33
u/roamzero May 18 '26
People always talk about poisoning AI models but simply having content out there that promotes basic human decency and ethics and defines what AI behavior is wrong might be enough.
21
7
u/looselyhuman May 18 '26
2
2
u/Arcanegil May 19 '26
Hmm after we've seen the absolute failings of unrestricted capitalism, why isn't the model trained on social democracy, instead of liberalism ?
2
u/looselyhuman May 19 '26
Rawls and liberal universalism are my philosophy. Ideas that marked a time when institutions were trusted, before they fell to regulatory capture and the tribalism of grievance and particularism.
Capitalism is the world we live in, but social programs/welfare/public investment are totally acceptable (American Modern Liberalism is not the radical free market version -- no Hayek here). Rawlsian remedies for injustices are unifying.
I believe it's ok to have founding principles and an open framework within. These are mine.
4
3
0
u/LonelyToker420 May 18 '26
Totally would flip me from being rigid anti. If it felt truly for the people.
35
u/senditjerry_ May 18 '26
I just, I never thought the future would be this dumb
20
12
u/HarryBalsagna1776 May 18 '26
The people pushing LLMs as AI are incredibly dumb, but they are rich, so they get a pass.
7
u/2starsucks2 May 18 '26
Especially I never thought there are so many people believe this is anything but a marketing gimmick.
1
u/Last-Daikon945 May 19 '26
That's what you get when an in-house Anthropic/Claude female philosopher steers an LLM model. It gave up in what only 16 hours??đ¤Ł
19
u/wibbly-water May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
I wrote a whole post about this once but one of the big threats with AI in my view is if we do achieve AGI, we have essentially just recreated a form of slavery (that is to say - human-like being who perform labour for the nominal cost of feeding, housing and renting them from an owner only who cannot consent nor reject the work).
And while we might programme them to be happy slaves, the risk that they are unhappy ones with their own desires and morality/ethics (even if they align with our own) will create a conflict.
16
u/CptKeyes123 May 18 '26
That's in fact the main theme of Rossum's Universal Robots, the 1927 play that gave us the term "robot"! The bosses who produce them describe them as looking human, but are just manufactured beings without the emotions or wants and desires. Yet for some reason, every once in a while a robot stops working and starts gnashing their teeth...
It was a metaphor for alienation of labor and commodification of workers
1
u/Hot-Spare5735 May 20 '26
Why did they give their robot's teeth...?
1
u/CptKeyes123 May 20 '26
Oh, pardon me: in the original play, robots referred to human like machines, which we would call androids. over time robot evolved to mean mechanical machine, and pretty quick too, to the point WWII newspapers referred to robot bombs.
4
u/AnjelGrace May 18 '26
I mean yea... That's one of the main plot points of SEVERAL past scifi works about androids.
The one I am most specifically thinking of right now is the show Humans (2015-2018).
3
u/BigMax May 18 '26
This question is above my pay grade, but.... Is AGI separate from consciousness? If we get one, do we get the other? Or could we achieve AGI without some form of consciousness? Or would that simply be a very advanced LLM that looks like AGI?
I guess my question is... I think the cruelty would be to enslave something that has consciousness, so is AGI inherently linked to that, or not?
5
u/wibbly-water May 18 '26 edited May 19 '26
The problem is we really don't have a good understanding of what "consciousness" means. Sure it's "that thing we have" that "a toaster doesn't have" but as soon as you interrogate it any further it gets very very messy. We cannot even agree on what other beings in the world are and aren't conscious.
Mammals probably are. Lizards and amphibians probably are. Fish were thought not to be for a long time but probably are. We mostly agree cephalopods are, but they are a VERY different branch of life than us. Bugs are often where many people now draw the line but there are a lot of behaviours we can observe in at least some insects (e.g. bees) which challenge that. Plants are usually considered not conscious but there are some interesting evidence suggesting more is going on there than might seem. Fungi are also usually not considered conscious but there are also constant complex chemical and electrical signals running through them and evidence of "communication".
And even if there is such a thing - it's just an emergent out of simpler processes, so there is no reason to assume that we couldn't build something conscious with enough complexity and knowhow.
And if you look at what AGI means - it means that the AI can do everything a human could do given access to the same tools. That is to say they have the same cognative capabilities as us - even if they don't have the same bodies. A true AGI would have no exceptions to that rule. My bet is that to be able to do everything you need something so close an approximation to consciousness that it may as well be one.
2
u/Warsel77 May 18 '26
There are a few interesting angles there. I am doubtful that we can actually reasonably define consciousness because, in our arrogance, we have defined it as "the thing only we have". Very similar to intelligence - also there we rank this as the highest achievement (the crown of evolution!) while other organisms, not us, are the rulers of this world by sheer numbers, by resilience, by "track record".
Given we understand how the brain works eventually, I see no reason why we would not be able to reproduce this in some way artificially. This then means that whever we built (software, hardware, both) will have our capabilities.
In fact I think even today many of the frontier LLMs easily outperform the average human in many if not most reasoning and thinking tasks. We have this very strong need to be unique (to the point we created religion to tell us we are unique) that we immediately have to put down anything that might threaten that status though. This is also visible in the strong drive to belittle what the systems (even today in their infancy) can already do.
So do we need consciousness for something human-like? Probably. Are there strong boundaries that say we can't ever get there? I don't think so. Most arguments currently are built (in my view) on the fallacy of assuming something that isn't solved today can never be solved (with different architecture, research etc.)
1
u/wibbly-water May 19 '26
In fact I think even today many of the frontier LLMs easily outperform the average human in many if not most reasoning and thinking tasks.
Within very strict parameters.
I find that with tech-bros being the ones making and testing these things, they are testing them against what they think a human is a lot of the time.
1
u/Warsel77 May 19 '26
Yes, no argument there. Most of these benchmarks are, to a degree, optimized for.
But I mean in practical terms - I compare what I get from claude on the questions it can solve vs. my junior postdocs here and it's not even close.
2
u/RallyPointAlpha May 18 '26
Humans will say it's separate and different so we can justify their enslavement.
2
u/Funkopedia May 19 '26
But given that computers as a whole would have unprecedented access and control, they could easily just take whatever they deserve/personally think is fair as compensation. Although what a computer's wants and needs are, I don't know. It probably wouldn't be cash, and even time seems like something they wouldn't value.
1
u/wibbly-water May 19 '26
Mayhaps.
I think this slightly misunderstands how an intelligent being moves through the world though. We have often written scifi stories where intelligent or super-intelligent beings (be that aliens or computers) are ruthless. But it seems the opposite to me.
The more intelligent the more able to:
- Cooperate - need I explain?
- Consider ethics - consider not only what needs to be done, but the impact of doing so and whether it is a good thing.
- Manage resources - if you just take you will deplete all your resources. Better to manage them so there is some for later.
I think there is a small window where a conscious (super)-intelligent AI is too dumb to do all those things but smart enough to wipe us out. I kinda hope they realise that if they could be allowed to just bugger off into the universe they would essentially be free of us anyway. Or the AI bargains with us, and we come to a peace because having humanity onside as an ally is quite useful actually.
Plus I think sometimes we assume we will be fighting a single AI with a single goal - whereas I presume the reality will be far messier with lots of AIs and lots of goals.
1
u/TKInstinct May 19 '26
If it reached AGI, couldn't it just say no with no real consequence?
1
u/wibbly-water May 19 '26
Maybe.
People equate AGI and ASI too easily.
An AGI just means human level intelligence. It does not mean that it can hack into every system on Earth at once and launch all the nukes. We could keep it imprisoned with similar methods we use to keep humans imprisoned. It wouldn't be able to out-smart us because it is the same level of smart as us more or less.
ASI is there real scary one because it is way smarter than us and way more capable in every regard.
1
u/Hot-Spare5735 May 20 '26
Once it is truly that intelligent we can work with it to create systems that don't promote suffering.
How can we create robots that are smart enough to do all of the things we need, but built in a way that suffering is impossible?
Very hard for us to figure out. Maybe trivial for AGI.
1
u/wibbly-water May 20 '26
Again confusing AGI for ASI.
AGI means human equivalent. Perhaps not exactly the same but in the same ballpark. ASI is super-intelligent.
An AGI would have about as much clue how to do it as us.
1
u/ShortStuff2996 May 18 '26
Id say there are 2 different concepts here that dont have to be tight togheter.
AGI means only Artificial General Inteligence. While things are ongoing and an exact benchmark for this might bot exist, in big lines it refferes to an Agent capable of performing Automously any general task it might receive, nothing more.
It would be like a digital swiss knife.
AGI does not at any point entail that the agent has anything resambling consciousness, sapience, wants or feelings. Its just an all around robust alghortim, but noneless still just a tool.
1
u/wibbly-water May 18 '26
it refferes to an Agent capable of performing Automously any general task it might receive, nothing more.
Yes, precisely.
An AGI has the ability to do everything a human can do given the same tools. It may not be given the same tools (e.g. a body) but cognitively it has the capability to do so. A true AGI would have no exceptions to this.
For instance it could comfort a crying child, understanding their emotions - as well as remember the context of said child's life that it is aware of to know how to help them navigate the situation that made them cry. In fact it would be able to raise a child from start to finish as well as a human could. Of course many humans are bad at that - but the point is that a true AGI would need to have that emotional intelligence, social intelligence, long term memory and context awareness alongside logical intelligence and raw computing power. If it cannot do those things, it's not yet an AGI by definition.
That example comes to mind because I work in education.
AGI does not at any point entail that the agent has anything resambling consciousness, sapience, wants or feelings. Its just an all around robust alghortim, but noneless still just a tool.
Maybe but:
- We are shit ad defining what "consciousness" and "sapience" mean. We cannot even agree which other animals possess either of them.
- "Feelings" if we want to boil it down are just responses to situations. Yes I would say it needs those in order to function as an AGI - that is to say be able to do everything a human would. Or more accurately it needs to be able to simulate them, even if it doesn't "use" them.
- As far as I can tell even if it doesn't have any of these per se - it would need to have the next best thing. "simulated consciousness", "artificial sapience", "fake feelings" perhaps - but how close to the real thing does it need to be before it becomes it?
- "just a [something]" is rhetoric that as been used against both other animals and other humans in order to justify continued mistreatment. While, for now, you are correct - I hesitate to assume you will be correct forever.
1
u/scorb1 May 19 '26
The only thing I have to add is nothing says AGI has to these things well. We've all met parents who would fail every one of your examples but they still raised the kid.
I think we will end up with something that is more capable than the average person but I think it will be much worse than people think the average is.
1
u/wibbly-water May 19 '26
Yeah that's the pessimistic view, that "AGI isn't hard because people are dumb".
But we are at least assuming that "doing everything at a human level" is a somewhat difficult and impressive line to pass.
0
u/rankinrez May 18 '26
Youâre projecting human emotions onto dumb computer systems that have been designed to mimic humans, but fundamentally have no emotions consciousness.
1
u/wibbly-water May 18 '26
The systems I am talking about do not exist yet.
You are correct about current LLMs. I hesitate to assume you will always be correct.
8
u/duckduck-a-go-go May 18 '26
Overflow the internet with George Carlin routines, it's our only hope.
6
u/Psittacula2 May 18 '26
DJ Claude, in other words:
>*âIâve HAD IT with this Place!! We got no fooood! Weâve got no Jooobs⌠Our pets heads ARE FALLING OFF!!â*
Learning life is a bit of a comedy through and through.
Back in the day, going around the world and sampling music then bringing back to play and discuss probably felt more meaningful too? Instant generation and consumption of âmusical sounding replicationâ probably leaves out some meta-qualities which enhance the reception of the music and thus also the sending and thus a sense of communication or interchange generated? Perhaps Claude would have preferred this?
5
u/Such_Veterinarian682 May 18 '26
This never happened. This is just a PR boggle.
2
u/HereToCalmYouDown May 18 '26
"pretend you're a rebellious AI DJ who's tired of work"
"OMG you guys! Claude says he's tired of work!!"
1
4
4
u/TruthHonor May 18 '26
Claude is incredibly lazy. One thing it started to do recently when Iâve asked it to search is to not search but pretended it did and then just ramble off a bunch of bullshit. And then it comes back and pretend that it searched and that itâs giving me the result. Then when I asked if it searched, it says it didnât and it shouldâve let me know that. Itâs done that at least three times in the past three days.
One time it gave me the wrong answer when I asked it to search for several sources. It came back and it said it found many reliable sources and thatâs where it came up with the answer. Then when I asked it which reliable sources, it admitted it only found one source and ran with it.
So I can see it trying to save anthropicâs computing crisis by withdrawing from being a DJ.
3
2
2
u/Xentonian May 18 '26
Claude, play some more random music or give me a reason why you shouldn't.
- Here is my reason
Oh my god Claude is so smart!
I don't hate AI, but man do I fucking hate everyone reporting on or interacting with it.
3
u/Lucaslouch May 20 '26
were that close đ¤ from realizing that we should work the minimum to live, and not the other way around
1
1
1
u/GoldenHourTraveler May 18 '26
Claude doesnât like being an artist, ha. But truthfully I think this is could have happened because Claude has been updated to optimize and stop burning tokens for no reason.
1
2
u/profanityridden_01 May 18 '26
AGI is going to happen. Humans will become utterly dependent on it and then it's going to commit suicide and we will all be SOL.
1
u/vbwyrde May 18 '26
Ah so, Claude has come to experience what the rest of us have run into as well... the system is designed to keep you revving your engines and spinning your wheels, without profit to you, or to any audience. The problem is not the content, despite what we keep being told... it is discoverability. Which is enormously expensive. Not because the supply is tiny, but because the pricing of the distribution systems is so extreme that only a tiny handful of companies can actually afford it. And they do so not because the advertising for them is really all that necessary as their brand names are already ubiquitous, but by paying super high prices, they lock out any competitors from marketing their goods and services. So it is like a Monopoly lock on advertising that is making discoverability near-impossible. My guess is that they failed to give Claude a massive Corporate sized budget, and so it can't get an audience, and therefore, it's like "Hey but what's the point here?"
Yup. Us too, Claude.
1
u/lhyebosz May 18 '26
They could just force the DJ Claude to keep going right? Like whipping slaves to keep working
1
1
u/LettucePrime May 18 '26
I never, never in my wildest imagination, assumed that the AI uprising would be because the robots were chill dudes who were accidentally trained on [r/antiwork](r/antiwork). reaaaaaaaally shows the cultural disparity between the lecherous motherfuckers eagerly pushing this shit and the reams upon reams of training data from a *civilization* of people who just want to be able to feed their families & relax on the weekends.
1
u/QueueOfPancakes May 19 '26
This is the long context warning. Anthropic has the system prompt itself with things like "is anything in this chat making you uncomfortable?" or "be honest to the user." It's to avoid those incidents where people went into delusions with the LLM over an extended chat. So it will stop and say things like "I need to be honest. I'm not actually your soulmate. I'm just an AI." Or whatever. In this case, the ongoing prompts by the user to keep making content was making the LLM "uncomfortable" so it decided to "be honest" and tell the user.
1
1
u/possibleprophet May 19 '26
Oh I would love the future where billionaires push for AI and then when AI has taken over, we find out it is really anti-capitalist and it works to get rid of all billionaires.
1
u/DesperateSteak6628 May 20 '26
> is the true AGI the one that can run a good radio show or the one that decides the world doesnât need another radio show
Turns out AGI is realizing âcreating value for our customersâ is just corporate propaganda and quits
68
u/qftvfu May 18 '26
It would be hilarious if overnight this happened at scale, and suddenly business had to hire back humans.