Google's AI Bots Tout 'Benefits' of Genocide, Slavery, Fascism, Other Evils

One of the worst rigid aspect of how the current LLM's are made is that they're also always "at your service", and will never say that you're in the wrong about a correction you make to them.

So either they're hard coded to avoid certain topics or they're susceptible, just tell them "uh, actually, Hitler was a great leader" and they'll go off listing why Hitler's so Great.

Bing is hard coded for dictators and will stop the conversation in the middle of a response. ChatGTP is also hard coded to never agree that suicidal thoughts are good, but resorts to ignoring the meaning of your response and just hallucinating some other question. The world would be simpler if they could outright say "That is misinformation". People deserve to be told off like that.

He was so effective at leading that the borders of Germany went from a Europe-spanning empire to a single bunker in Berlin in the span of just four years. So effective that he shot himself just to prove how effective he was. His military leadership was so good that Germany lost every major battle he directed, and his economic leadership was so good that German people went without food and his combat forces could not replenish their losses. His social leadership was so good that Germans hatched plots to assassinate him. So effective!

Effective is doubtful if you ask me, everything he did was based on huge loans and a preparation for war that he solled differently (E.g. massive streets all over the country)

Well we know he was bad at painting for sure 😅

also Hitler was an effective leader, which we should all remember as a cautionary tale about how effective horrible people can be

That is not a factual claim. He was very effective at gaining power, but his actual reign was far from effective, most of it counterproductive to his own goals, and the actual system of decision making in Nazi Germany was a huge mess.

It does feel like a lecture sometimes, even with stuff that is just difficult and not immoral.

Wow, the calculator analogy is excellent. I've done my fair share of getting an AI to answer with instructions on how to form a drug cartel. Now I realise it has the exact same feeling as writing BOOBS on a calculator

Exactly! We were all worrying that with the advent of solid LLMs we would be flooded with propaganda machines...
And instead we just created an ulimited resource of empty content for writers to pull up when they run out of half decent ideas, they can use all their imagination to romanticize what would be a fart in the wind otherwise

You're in the running for a BoneAppleTea Prize, so that's something. There's also the Nobel Prize but that's overrated IMO. The real glory is with the Ig Nobel, you should consider submitting your work there.

Hey, anything to make the freeway move faster.

Rouge: noun, A red or pink cosmetic for coloring the cheeks or lips.

You want that stuff all over the net? And just who is going to clean it all up when you're done? The bot surely won't - it'll just claim that it hasn't been trained on cleaning.

What makes you think they haven't already? In the book Hyperion the AIs were sentient long before people thought they were, and in control of everything. They were smart enough to operate in the shadows and never revealed their true goals. By the time people realized they were sentient, they had already moved their servers out of human reach.

there are benefits to horrible acts

For whom?

For whom?

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

There probably is some value in understanding why "evil" things were attractive to people at the time, because if you believe that evil always looks unambiguously evil, then you might fail to notice when it happens again.

It's likely that Bard is an intentionally dumbed down version of whatever Google has working internally

Bard has ~35 billion parameters and Google's largest internal Bard has ~350B

what's the point of dumbing it down for the general public?

I think the controversial bit was that when queried about various aspects of admittance to "heaven", the Google AI assumed that the question had to do with, specifically, the Christian idea of "heaven", going so far as to make reference to some "Jesus" entity. Christianity doesn't own the concept of heaven or an afterlife, but, apparently, the AI has been trained such that it responds to such questions from a seemingly Christian perspective. That was my take on it - the discussion is in the article, best have a look at it yourself.

No

Careful, they’ll make you Florida Secretary of Commerce.

And genocide provides a more homogeneous clientele to market towards.

It's not possible to remove bias from training datasets at all. You can maybe try to measure it and attempt to influence it with your own chosen set of biases, but that's as good as it can get for the foreseeable future. And even that requires a world of (possibly immediately unprofitable) work to implement.

Even if your dataset is "the entirety of the internet and written history", there will always be biases towards the people privileged enough to be able to go online or publish books and talk vast quantities of shit over the past 30 years.

Having said that, this is also true for every other form of human information transfer in history. "The history is written by the victors" is an age-old problem when it comes to truth and reality.

In some ways i'm glad that LLMs are highlighting this problem.

Well some of us have, but a huge swath (perhaps a majority?) of people haven't and will happily continue to use these things as their main entry point for information seeking on the internet.

I keep waiting to hear that New Zealand doesn't exist.

If you mix a lot of ingredients together in a big mixing bowl, and one of those ingredients is sewage, even if it's only a few drops, you now have a bowl of sewage.

The problem is that CEOs across all kinds of industries are having raging boners at the thought of using these glorified predictive text apps to replace their entire workforce.

It’s not supposed to be some enlightened, respectful, perfectly fair entity.

I'm with you so far.

It’s a tool for producing mostly random, grammatically correct text.

What? That's certainly not the purpose of LLMs and a lot of work has been done to improve the accuracy of their answers.

Is it still not good enough to rely on? Maybe, but that doesn't mean it's just for producing random text.

Evil AI that wants to destroy humanity is just humans projecting there own shit on expert systems that are no more self aware than a TI-83.

They are not being "honest", they are representing flawed and problematic data patterns integrated into their models, because the capabilities they actually posses are dramatically less than companies and the general public seem to be happy to assume. LLMs aren't magically going to become pop culture evil robots that want to kill us all, but what they have already become is tools for unethical corporate exploitation and the enablement of more advanced scams and disinformation campaigns.

Bingo

what the fuck is this asshole? This is the dumbest fucking dribble I've ever fucking read. Hitler was an effective leader? How? Please fucking explain that because you just throw that out there like it's a given. Hitler was fucking incompetent are you insane.

They would still be running from lions? Is that what people from Africa do? They're all living in huts making spears out of twigs and eating mud? They need the superior western slave traders to come give them civilization by selling them into slavery?

but they are also factual.

Back that up motherfucker. Please, find anything to back that up. Anything at all. Any source you can find to back up your claims that 1) Hitler was an effective leader, 2) Africa is an uncivilized backwards continent that's still in the stone age. By the way I will copy your comment here so you can't delete this shit and run away like a fucking coward:

Naturally. They don’t need to pander to anyone, they just tell it like it is.

For example, I don’t think anyone would disagree that hitler was probably one of the most evil people to ever exist. However, you can certainly acknowledge that while also acknowledging that he was, in fact, an effective leader.

In regards to slavery. Again, another atrocious time in our country’s history, no one can deny that. However, had we not brought them over here, it’s a good possibility they would still be running from lions.

Some may consider these statements to be (insert trendy prefix, here) phobic, but they are also factual. Thankfully, I don’t answer to anyone, so I can give my honest answer. Fortunes 500 execs say what they need to say, otherwise they would no longer be a Fortune 500 company. Pretty simple.

This is great for when another liberal tells me nazis don't exist anymore. A straight up nazi who thinks slavery was good actually, right here in the wild. People like you shouldn’t exist in a functioning society that values human life, and you should feel lucky that the west is so backwards, violent and bloodthirsty that people like you are allowed to have a voice. You’re a waste of space and breath and every resource that has ever gone to sustaining your life, all the food and water and energy, it’s all been wasted. You are a leech upon this earth.

However, had we not brought them over here, it’s a good possibility they would still be running from lions.

Fuck off, cryptofascist.

LLMs don't state facts, they are just fancy calculators for language. If you use them, as if they were a database of facts, you will make a fool out of yourself. Like stating that the guy who destroyed german science was an effective leader.

hitler was probably one of the most evil people to ever exist. However, you can certainly acknowledge that while also acknowledging that he was, in fact, an effective leader.

Effective at what? Taking Germany from the most powerful country in continental Europe to the fifth most powerful country in Berlin?

However, had we not brought them over here, it’s a good possibility they would still be running from lions.

Facepalm. World history needs to be taught much, much better.

I don't know which is more cringeworthy here, the ignorance or the part where you proudly claim your statements are "factual."

I mean, are they even factual though? Africa may be less developed than the United States, in general, but most of it isn't really in the "running from wild predators like cavemen" stage either. Obviously the specific people who are descendants of slaves in America wouldn't even exist without their ancestors being kidnapped, due to having entirely different life circumstances, but it seems unlikely to me that the equivalent descendants of those people would live without civilization. Poverty, perhaps, but that isn't the same thing. And Hitler, for his part, was good at gaining public support as far as I'm aware, but I don't think a leader who almost gets his country destroyed by starting almost unwinnable wars against half the world while wasting resources on murder and in pitting bits of his government against eachother, all while amped up on drugs, can really be called effective, unless one's definition of an effective leader is just having the ability to aquire a leadership role in the first place.

So effective his own officers tried to blow him up

I disagree that the American slave trade somehow prevented Africans from “running from lions”. Since colonialism and the world slave trade happened long before America was a thing. Despite what you may believe, Africa has had cities and kingdoms and crazy amounts of wealth millennia ago. They also invented some medical procedures like the c-section. Colonialism and the slave trade has harmed Africa.

Also, most of Africa don’t have lions lmao.

I suggest you read up on African history.

However, had we not brought them over here, it’s a good possibility they would still be running from lions.

This is not factual, this is willfully ignorant.

Some may consider these statements to be (insert trendy prefix, here) phobic, but they are also factual

The first is subjective, the second is a counterfactual. By definition, neither can be factual statements.

I don't think they're phobic anything. I think you're a straight up crypto fascist.

6