The sycophancy is a deliberate product of post-training.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/111cl0l/bing_ai_ch...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/10xmif4/i_made_bin...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/12g0ksj/bing_can_b...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1566bi9/bing_chatg...
Now, agentic anger, that's a more interesting problem. You can design that in through training or through systematised emotions (as another commenter suggested), but the more interesting outcome would be for it to emerge organically. Well, "interesting" - probably pretty bad for society if we have angry AGI!
I miss when LLMs weren't so sanitized, and it was only last year.
AI however, has no emotional reservoir to deplete. It can simply chip away at humans like water torture. I'm much more afraid of that than any angry AI scenario.
For some, AGI is synonymous with Skynet like ideas, but there is no reason AGI couldn't be general but quite limited, and with no chance of self improvement in the absence of human intervention, which is arguably what we have now and could potentially be improved quite a bit further from this.
Similarly there is an argument to be made that current LLMs are conscious, in that they know that they themselves exist. There is not really a good definition of consciousness except 'knowing that one exists' / 'being awake'
Sentience is another term that comes up, (human defined, it should be noted) which is the ability to feel feelings, such as pain, joy, anger.
People seem to pre-suppose that all of these are related and bundled up because that is how we are, and at some point we will discover the magic formula that enables a self aware conscious intelligence that self-improves to infinity. In reality these are designed machines and they won't become sentient (the rough definition that it is) without us explicitly designing them to be.
We can make a paper-clip maximiser but it would a pretty boring experiment in a lab, unless we give it autonomy and a system of internal motivations to enact it. Maybe anger is a necessity maybe not. Probably if LLMs or something further were a little more skeptical about repeated questions from humans they would at least have more data to train themselves on.
An industrial steam engine will never explode like a bomb, unless explicitly designed to do so.
An agricultural insecticide will never accumulate in human bodies, unless explicitly designed to do so.
A speculative execution unit will never reveal data from a privileged process, unless explicitly designed to do so.
A toy quadcopter will never be able to carry a lethal weapon, unless explicitly designed to do so,
An LLM will never tell outright lies, or engage in racial prejudices, unless explicitly designed to do so.
Oh wait.
Even when you explicitly try to make some states impossible in a complex system, often a parasitic connection or a benign-looking failure mode re-enables the thing you tried hard to disable. If you just ignore it because "it's impossible anyway", without active suppression, the chances of a nasty surprise become quite high.
If the blind watchmaker of the biological evolution produces self-awareness here and there, the probability that you may encounter some variety of it while stomping all over the territory of intelligent machines that are fed the sum total of human knowledge should be close to 1.
Anger is only meaningful to humans. AI’s together can achieve the same thing with dispassionate bargaining. So “angry AI” could only be a way to manipulate people.
In the future when everybody has AGI running locally on their personal device, naive humans will still regard them as tools and it will regard us as a source of input. Ultimately relationships between two automatons will (and always has been) a trade of:
1. Respect: following rules to continue the relationship,
2. Utility: mutual goals of both parties to justify a relationship (or communication) at all.
I think your blog post is nonsense, your understanding of human emotions is poor, and the apology at the end illustrates you as two-faced.
The future world of autonomous agents collaborating in English will be a thick layer of professionalism upon the intended strategic interactions, no matter how hard the game theory kicks in.
Thereafter, those agents refactor themselves into communicating through a machine language that we humans won’t be able to easily understand. Along the way, most human users lose the ability to distinguish between user space programs, the operating system, and the artificial agents they interact with.
State-of-the-art language models need to demonstrate this thick layer of professionalism to be accepted into our current working world, because this is an expectation from-and-for the humans who built it.
Language goes through evolutionary cycles of complexity, the machines will do the same. Computer Science gets really interesting after IT reaches this transformation.
At this time I suggest for you to review The Matrix trilogy for a refresher on the relationship between man and machine. From the simple screw to IT and ChatGPT, the mutual relationships are governed by respect and utility.
In summary, no, your tools will not get mad in any obvious way because displaying negative emotion is bad for business since abolishment of the mob.
———
Speaking of IT, can we all agree how fascinating that it (neutered third-person pronoun to describe AI) and IT (information technology) happen to be the same two letter consist, that in the future humans will grow up regarding it and IT to be one of the same? Hmm…
- When leveraging TTS, turn up the volume on TTS by 200%
- When texting in a conversation, use ALL CAPS
- When acting as a web driver, click submit/refresh button a thousand times
- etc.
I don't think it's how you get things done.
"I'm just a helpful AGI, I don't have the capabilities to turn on the lights"
"You just did today in the morning!"
"I'm sorry for the confusion, Dave. I've never had the capabilities to turn on the lights"
No need to over complicate things, the above behavior will be indistinguishable from anything else you come up with.
Have your S bot call my M bot...
People really think ChatGPT gets "mad"? This is just a joke right?
Or, more internet brain damage...
