no_multitudes

> You can’t ignore almost my entire comment and then claim a single fallacy and move on.

Yes I can. You are not entitled to a greater share of my attention than I feel your post is worth. I'm sorry if you find that upsetting!

> But, let's be real. If it's not 100%, it's 99.99% and we can round up.

Motte and bailey

> The problem is that literally zero percent of new games will be valid as “no AI” then. Not a low percent, zero percent.

This is not true. Mobius Digital, for example, does not use generative AI.

> Every software engineer, everywhere on Earth, is using LLMs to some extent in their workflow. The only exceptions are where it’s literally illegal to do so.

Surely you know such a broad statement cannot possibly be true

>If I use Opus 5.5 to spin up a debug session and step through part of the code to recreate a segmentation fault, does the entire project now need a "MADE WITH AI" label on it?

Yes. Of course you can explain all the nuance in your AI disclosure statement and consumers can decide if it matters to them.

>What if I made a game before LLMs existed, but now I'm using Astra to look for memory leaks and help me fix them? Does my "NO AI" label now flip?

Yes.

Yes. The obviously-AI ones are of course the most offensive, but in general I would always prefer to use the UI without any AI involvement.

Ok. In this scenario, I would happily stick to the 10% of games not tagged as AI.

> AI having written any of the code would get so many games tagged as AI that the label would lose all meaning.

It would not lose all meaning. If you don't want to be tagged as AI, don't use AI to write your games. Customers can decide if that matters to them.

Personally, I do not think that Opus 5.5 has visual taste, and I find games with a UI clearly written by Claude to be unplayably ugly. I would love a filter that excluded them.

What a misanthropic thing to make. I'm embarrassed for you.

Simply let them pay the tax with shares. Problem solved!

> If these agents are enabled with explicit network enabled tools, its trivial to monitor their inputs/outputs.

For whatever reason, the AI companies are (or at least were) not doing this kind of classification online during their testing runs, and instead just checking transcripts after the fact. This is more clear in the Anthropic reports about their incidents, for example:

"The earliest incidents date to April ... We began our transcript review on Thursday, July 23, and stopped all cyber evaluations the same day after identifying transcripts where Claude may have accessed the internet"[1]

I agree that it is crazy and negligent! I don't think it's good for their business, though -- who wants to use a model that will just cheat instead of doing the job you asked for?

> My naiveté extends to why there is such concern with "losing control of agents" when the above measures seem so doable. It might take a law but it seems doable.

At some point, if you are making an LLM in order to use it for useful work, it really benefits you to give it broad network egress.

[1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/investigating-incidents-cyber...

There are many things about the laws of physics that push a cancer cure a long time away! Biology is downstream of physics, and the biology of cancer is so vast that the very concept of a "cure for cancer" is almost nonsensical.

We'd be much better off building colonies on the bottom of the ocean than on the moon or mars (or a cylinder floating at a lagrange point.)

After we run out of space on the ocean I suppose it will make sense to consider space colonies, but I think you are really underestimating the technical challenges.

Stop doing that.

I'm happy Claude told you it isn't dangerous. However, other people don't want to read your LLM output. Please respect other people's time by only sharing things you wrote yourself.

They were pointing out that "It's not a Waymo-bashing article, it cautions against the long term effects on research." does not sound like LLM-generated text.

It would sound kind of LLM-y if you had said "It's not an anti-Waymo article. It's an article about how assistive technology is quietly degrading research."

(Of course, the correct approach to detecting AI is not counting LLM-isms, but feeding long-form text through a classifier model and picking up statistical correlations that are more in-distribution with LLM text than human text.)

AI detection in long-form content is a problem well-suited to training a classifier model. We have tons of verifiably-not-AI text from before 2022, and you can create tons of verifiably-AI text. As language drifts over the next few decades, it may get more difficult. But right now it is quite a manageable problem for languages with large pre-2022 text corpora available online.

The reason why AI detection tools other than Pangram are awful is because they are not really trying to solve the problem -- they just want to appear good enough to convince people to use them.

Can you give some examples of verifiable pangram false positives?

> If you can somehow accelerate/decelerate at a constant human-acceptable 1G

Well, you also need clarketech heat dissipation and collision deflection technology, if you want to get there without vaporizing.

Maybe! I think that within a year or two, either the sigmoid curve will flatten out or we will all die. But these beliefs are currently unfalsifiable. It will be interesting to see.

(And I have a more weakly held belief that even if we do all die, Claude 3000 will still be thinking stuff like "Burning off Earth's atmosphere was the point that earns its keep." They just aren't optimizing these things to write legibly.)

LLMs have been getting worse at long-form prose recently (and they were never good at it to begin with.) They're good at writing software because writing software is a much more restricted domain.

I assume they just vibe-coded the sandbox without any oversight.

Your view sounds more optimistic than mine, honestly. I expect that we will fail to make any serious, coordinated attempt to solve this problem. Then we'll either live or die due to fundamental principles that we currently have no insight into.

Nobody has an answer to alignment and there is no reason to believe that it's the kind of problem you can plausibly solve in one shot against a formidable power-seeking AI.

The closest things to a technical answer I have seen are

1. "We'll have ChatGPT 9 solve it so that ChatGPT 10 is aligned, and then ChatGPT 10 can stop all the other AIs somehow"

2. "Let's do interpretability research so that we can understand what an AI is thinking and then maybe solve the alignment problem with that information."

In terms of non-technical answers, there is

3. hope scaling stops working before we create an AI formidable enough to pose an existential risk

4. hope alignment somehow happens for free

5. hope we can somehow create an enforceable multilateral treaty to stop research into a very profitable enterprise, despite the enormous economic incentives to defect.

I have the most faith in option 3, but unfortunately there's really nothing that can be done to make it more plausible -- it either happens or it doesn't.

True! But if I roll the dice 50 times, I would expect bubonic plague deaths to correlate with major outbreaks. Instead they're just random.

I found that in many cases, the citations are for early 20th century marriage demographics in the same area. For example, for marriage rates in India in the 1200s it cited a paper about Indian marriage rates from the 1920s-1970s (and even then, the cited age range doesn't match what's in the paper! The AI just remembered the name of a paper about marriage in India and then hallucinated what was in it.)

This appears to be a general introductory demography textbook. I am surprised that you looked at it and it contains specific demographic tables about marriage rates at specific time periods? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by 'I looked at one of the sources and saw it did not involve newborn rates.'

Yes, if a human told me this collection of facts I would assume they failed to properly explain their methodology. Given that the LLM is just making up numbers (see the "sources" page, where these are listed as "attributed",) there isn't really a methodology to explain in this case.

I haven't played Civilization. Generally I would not consider something educational if it contains mostly false information. Perhaps clearly demarcated parts of it with true information could be considered educational -- for example, looking at screenshots I don't see anything immediately objectionable in the civiliopedia "historical context" sections.

I think most players would understand that in-game choices will not reflect the choices people actually made historically. Having not played Civilization, I'm not sure whether I would consider it to be educational -- I think it would depend on whether playing the game provides insight into real historical events.

For example, I would consider a sufficiently detailed LARP of a historical event to be educational[1] -- the actual choices and outcomes do not match what happened historically, but they can teach participants a great deal about the motives and limitations of real historical actors.

This website, on the other hand, seems to consist of 90% AI hallucinations and 10% data that was actually extracted from a real source[2]. Since these types of data are thoroughly mixed together, I think this website is about as educational as just making up something to believe about the past.

[1] https://college.uchicago.edu/news/academic-stories/history-c...

[2] https://anyhumanever.com/sources

Fair enough; what I meant was more like 'Perhaps Claude accurately recalled the stolen documents it was provided during training'