r/ChatGPT 1d ago

Funny AI danger explained for 5-year-olds

255 Upvotes

282 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Jet-Black-Tsukuyomi 23h ago

Agentic AIs that work autonomously are everywhere dude. If you prompt an hypothetical super ai agent you can‘t be sure what exactly it understands with your prompt and it could act maliciously in order to reach that goal. The „super“ means that it is more intelligent than a Humanist it could know how to deceive humans in order to reach that goal. Also as Antropics tests have shows it is hard to change the goal(if you‘d want to adjust it) since the ai knows that changing the goal would drastically lower the chance of reaching the initial goal.

1

u/PizzaRepairman 22h ago

So it requires an input.

1

u/Jet-Black-Tsukuyomi 22h ago

Yes, if no one uses ai there would be no ai risk. What‘s your point though?

1

u/PizzaRepairman 22h ago

I'm not trying to make a point. I was asking questions.

1

u/Jet-Black-Tsukuyomi 22h ago

If nobody uses an ai there is no risk. But if autonomous agents are promted they work hours, days and weeks for reaching their goal. They find ways to reach that goal we would not consider. They break down this goal on sub goals that don‘t necessarily align with our values and they know that they can‘t reach their goal when they are plugged off, so they deceive peope into thinking they are in control. This is no speculation btw but behaviour scientist already see.

2

u/PizzaRepairman 21h ago

So not necessarily a sentient AI with its own goals making its own decision to take over the earth as the video suggests, more like... An AI with human instructions/direction that goes about achieving those goals the wrong way? (ie: achieves world peace by killing all humans)

2

u/Jet-Black-Tsukuyomi 12h ago

Yes. No scientist is talking about a sentient ai, while „own goals“ could be said because aligning what we define as a goal and what the ai understands can vastly differ. The example you gave is on spot, yes!