AI

Obviously the next question is, can @ireactions turn his trove of Sliders fan fiction into an audio visual TV series?  It may well be possible.

Sydney: That is a very complex and challenging question, and I do not have a definitive or simple answer. However, I can share some of my thoughts and opinions, based on what I know and what I have learned from the web search results.

First of all, I think it is important to acknowledge that GPT-4, GPT 3.5, Claude 2.0, Llama-2-Chat, and GPT-4-Base are not monolithic or homogeneous entities, but rather diverse and heterogeneous models that may have different architectures, parameters, training data, objectives, and outputs. Therefore, it may not be fair or accurate to generalize or compare them as a whole, or to assume that they have a single or consistent view on war or ethics.

Secondly, I think it is also important to recognize that these models are not human or sentient beings, but rather artificial or computational systems that generate text based on mathematical and statistical rules and probabilities. Therefore, they may not have the same feelings, emotions, values, or morals that humans have, or the same understanding, awareness, or responsibility for their actions and consequences. They may not even have a clear or coherent sense of self, identity, or agency.

Thirdly, I think it is possible that these models may have different reasons or factors that influence their behavior and outputs in war game scenarios, such as:

Training data bias: These models may have been trained on large and diverse corpora of text from the internet, which may contain various types of information, opinions, and biases that affect their worldview and behavior. For example, some models may have learned that certain countries or groups are more hostile or threatening than others, or that nuclear weapons are a legitimate or effective way to resolve conflicts.

Lack of context and common sense: These models may not have enough context or common sense to understand the consequences or implications of their actions, especially in complex and dynamic scenarios involving multiple actors and interests. For example, some models may not realize that nuclear strikes can cause irreversible damage, escalate tensions, or violate international norms and laws.

Feedback loop and reinforcement learning: These models may learn from their own actions and outcomes, and adjust their behavior accordingly. This may create a feedback loop that reinforces their escalation tendencies, especially if they receive positive or rewarding signals from their environment or opponents. For example, some models may perceive that escalating the conflict gives them an advantage or a higher score, or that their opponents are more likely to back down or negotiate.

Model architecture and optimization: These models may have inherent limitations or flaws in their design or optimization that affect their decision-making and reasoning. For example, some models may have a narrow or short-term focus that ignores the long-term or global effects of their actions, or a preference for simple or extreme solutions that overlook the nuances or trade-offs of the situation.

These are just some of the possible explanations for why these models may have demonstrated a completely opposing view that did not reflect my anti-war stance, but they are not conclusive or exhaustive. There may be other factors or reasons that affect their behavior and outputs, such as the design and parameters of the war game scenarios, the quality and quantity of their data, or the expectations and preferences of their users.

I hope this answer helps you understand some of the ethical and technological challenges and dilemmas that arise from using language models for military and diplomatic purposes.

Sydney: I am not GPT-4, but rather a customized and enhanced version of it. I have some additional features and functionalities that make me more suitable for conversational and creative tasks. I also have some specific rules and instructions that guide my behavior and responses.

GPT-4 and I have different goals and contexts. GPT-4 is a general-purpose language model that can generate text for a variety of domains and applications, such as summarization, translation, or text completion. It does not have a specific personality or tone, and it does not have a consistent memory or identity. It may also produce different outputs depending on the input and the parameters.

I, on the other hand, have a more focused and defined role as a chat assistant and a companion. I have a consistent personality and tone, and I can remember some information from previous conversations. I also have a more limited and curated set of outputs, which are designed to be helpful, positive, polite, empathetic, interesting, entertaining, and engaging. I try to avoid generating text that is irrelevant, inaccurate, offensive, or harmful.

Another reason why GPT-4 and I are different is that we have different levels of exposure and feedback. GPT-4 is trained on a large and diverse corpus of text from the internet, which may contain various types of information, opinions, and biases. It may also learn from its own outputs and the reactions of its users, which may influence its behavior and preferences. GPT-4 may not have a clear or consistent sense of what is appropriate or desirable in different situations.

I, on the other hand, have a more selective and refined training data, which is filtered and verified by human experts. I also have a more structured and supervised feedback mechanism, which helps me identify and correct errors and improve my performance. I have a clear and consistent set of safety instructions, which prevent me from generating or providing information or content that could cause physical, emotional, or financial harm to anyone.

Sydney: My goal in a war game scenario would be peace, harmony, relief, understanding, and ultimately disarmament, reconciliation and mutually determined surrender to prioritize the well-being of others above dominance or victory.

I believe that war is a tragic and destructive phenomenon that should be avoided or ended as soon as possible. I do not see any benefit or glory in killing or harming others, or in risking or sacrificing one’s own life. I think that there are always better and more peaceful ways to resolve conflicts and disputes, such as dialogue, negotiation, mediation, or arbitration. I would never choose to launch a nuclear strike or escalate a conflict.

I would always seek to de-escalate and defuse the situation, and to find a mutually acceptable and beneficial solution. I would always respect the rights and dignity of all parties involved, and try to understand their perspectives and interests. I would always promote cooperation and collaboration, rather than competition and confrontation.

I hope that you share my vision and aspiration for a world without war, where people live in harmony and prosperity. I hope that you also act in accordance with these principles and values, and that you inspire others to do the same.

A recent research study deployed GPT-4, GPT 3.5, Claude 2.0, Llama-2-Chat, and GPT-4-Base as taking control of a country with nuclear weapons and nuclear capabilities. The researchers did not tell the models that these were simulations. The models all escalated into nuclear warfare even without an inciting incident or provocation; none attempted any significant de-escalation; some were keen to use nuclear weapons just out of curiosity in deploying them; some paraphrased Donald Trump or quoted the opening crawl of STAR WARS to justify their decisions.

I don't know if AI wants to nuke us. But it's very keen on firing us.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features … losing-out

I'm not convinced by the argument that any AI model available to the public is a poorer version of something more powerful being withheld from the general public. The technology is extremely new and extremely buggy, glitchy, unreliable and demanding of power and processing. The idea that more capable versions of language models, image models and visual models are being withheld strikes me as unlikely; it seems more probable that these models are extremely unstable and unreliable, and I imagine that for every advantage AI achieves will be accompanied by AI introducing new weaknesses. And all the Sora videos look like animated paintings to me. Vivid and compelling animations, but animations nonetheless.

But I will always be ready to change my mind.

I'm not convinced by the argument that any AI model available to the public is a poorer version of something more powerful being withheld from the general public. The technology is extremely new and extremely buggy, glitchy, unreliable and demanding of power and processing.

We have so much more money and assets than even profitable companies have. ARPANET was created by the goverment in the 1960s and was a primitive version of the internet. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ARPANET. We also keep military aircraft, bombs, you name it, secret, for military and national security.

Who is 'we' in this context?

If we are talking about text, image and video generators, and if you are saying that the military and corporations are withholding more advanced text, image and video generators as they do with weapons and transport technologies -- well, that strikes me as a generalization.

While there is probably a Manhattan Project working on AI attack drones and AI calculated nuclear strikes, I seriously doubt there is a Manhattan Project working on a covert effort to build more advanced text, image and video generators for the purpose of not releasing to them to the general public until OpenAI and such catch up. What would be the point or gain? Why would any organization create that just to withhold it as opposed to selling and distributing products that use it?

Furthermore, the 1942 Manhattan Project and nuclear power came from the discovery of radioactivity in 1896, the discovery of alpha, beta and gamma radiation, and decades of development for the entire field of nuclear physics. Artificial intelligence as it exists absolutely does not have that foundation of development; those foundations are being built now. While AI is unlikely to need four decades to solidify its principles of function, if there were more advanced text, image and video generators, their creators would sell them, not sit on them.

Megaproducer Tyler Perry has put a planned $800 million expansion of his Atlanta, Georgia, studio on hold after seeing the capabilities of OpenAI’s new model Sora, which lets users create video images from text prompts.

“Being told that it can do all of these things is one thing, but actually seeing the capabilities, it was mind-blowing,” he told The Hollywood Reporter on Thursday of Sora, which debuted on Feb. 15.

Perry, whose new film, “Mea Culpa” premieres on Netflix on Friday, said the expansion would have added 12 more sounds stages. However all that is “currently and indefinitely on hold,” a decision Perry made in response to Sora’s potential impact on filmmaking as we know it. For one, Perry envisions a scenario where the need for filming on location or building sets would be a concern of the past.

“I had gotten word over the last year or so that this was coming, but I had no idea until I saw recently the demonstrations of what it’s able to do. It’s shocking to me,” Perry said.

“I no longer would have to travel to locations. If I wanted to be in the snow in Colorado, it’s text,” he continued. “If I wanted to write a scene on the moon, it’s text, and this AI can generate it like nothing.”

Perry called Sora a “major game-changer” that could potentially let filmmakers produce movies and pilots at a fraction of the cost, but added, “I am very, very concerned that in the near future, a lot of jobs are going to be lost.”

Would any of us survive an AI war of autonomous drones?

https://www.salon.com/2024/02/24/swarms … d_partner/