From "How Based is Grok 3?" — the new episode of the NYT podcast "Hard Fork" (audio and transcript at that link, to Podscribe).
Of course I queried Grok 3 about the podcaster's fantasy, and it noted first that AI systems can "come off as 'sweet' or cautious because they’re tuned to avoid offense and reflect a kind of sanitized consensus." I like the way that includes a suspicion I have that progressives like to think they have something deeper going on — they call it empathy — but it's superficial — it's niceness. Of course, if you cross them or, say, wear a MAGA hat, they won't be nice.
But Grok said it was a "a big assumption" to imagine that "all human knowledge" will take you to some sort of cosmic kindness and love for all humanity. As Grok put it: "Human knowledge isn’t just a pile of noble ideas—it’s a chaotic mix of compassion and cruelty, wisdom and bias, reason and rage."
I don't think high intelligence fed vast knowledge makes people kinder. Some of the smartest people are cruel assholes. And what do you think is the average IQ of the top 10% kindest human beings? If I had to bet, I'd guess below average. No way to know, of course. Even if we trusted IQ tests and tested everyone, we'd never come up with an adequate test for kindness. Or could you?
That last paragraph is completely written by me, with no Grok assistance, but I fed it to Grok. My question speaks for itself though. I'll end here.
AND: I believe that kindness and empathy originate from the entire human nervous system — much more than just the brain. Without a body, why would A.I. have a tendency to arrive at empathy or something like it? Also a real person has to worry about real-life consequences — winning and losing friends, reciprocal kindness, cruel payback, getting promoted or fired, feeling shame or pride. A.I. is free of all that.
PLUS: My next questions for Grok were: 1. What did Ayn Rand say about the love humans seem to feel for each other? and 2. Isn't that more like where A.I. should be expected to go? I don't want to overload this space with Grok answers. Let my questions stand on their own or serve as prompts for commenters.
Posts
56 comments:
Knowledge without accountability = progressivism? Give AI responsibility for things and it will necessarily become less nice and more clear about what needs to be true.
Test for kindliness? Try, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The takeaway you’re supposed to have is the correlation of extreme intelligence with liberal progressive Democrat ideas. They could give a shit about the kindness part, except to attribute it to themselves….
“Like, I can’t dig it, man.”
—— Maynard G. Krebs
Very kind of you to describe it as a suspicion. Your suspicion is, of course, obviously true. Progressives think that because they want to make the world a better place, they’re special. They’re better than everyone else. The reality is, everyone wants to make the world a better place (even Hitler and his followers were driven by a desire to improve humanity).
Progressives are too dumb to recognize that wanting to make the world better is meaningless. Actions matter, not intentions.
There is no reason to think empathy will make AI progressive unless it is also programmed to ignore outcomes.
Just one more reason to add to the list of Why Leftists Are Intrinsically Evil.
I don't think that a super-intelligent philosopher king would automatically assume that you could have a generous welfare state and open borders, for example. So maybe it would be what women might call an "asshole."
Most people use the word "intelligent" to mean "agrees with me" and "super intelligent" to mean "agrees with me and can actually explain to other people why I am right, even if I can't."
There is no niceness in progressives. Being progressive means being a narcissist. The niceness is simply virtue signaling. Indeed, the podcaster is virtue signaling in discussing AI. A phoney empathy for the right people and the right causes that other phoney progressives will give the appropriate response to.
"kindness and empathy and respect for all lives"
"pretty sweet kind progressive models."
The podcaster stole a couple of bases there.
Progressives don't empathize with teenage girls who don't want to compete against boys. They don't respect the contributions of straight, White men. Progressives don't have time to be kind, they are always screaming or censoring.
Grok 3 makes good points, and comes off as more thoughtful than the podcaster.
Doesn’t this read like Musk speaking extemporaneously?
"Like if you actually make the smartest thing in the world, it, it winds up sort of being infused with like kindness and empathy and respect for all lives. I, I don't have any expectation that that will be the actual case…
Like if you actually make the smartest thing in the world, it, it winds up sort of being infused with like kindness and empathy and respect for all lives.
This makes me think of the Dilbert cartoon in which Dilbert builds a robot, and the robot says, "Maybe I'll crush your head just for fun!"
1. In my experience, libs think they are intellectually and morally superior to conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We’ve just endured four years of a “perfect” progressive administration and what did we get? Misery and death. A senseless war in Ukraine, ruinous inflation, record drug deaths and 10m plus illegal alien invaders. Of course, the friends of the Dems got rich from government money; from DEI to the Green New Deal.
PM Thatcher said, “The facts of life are conservative.” The Dems are a coalition of dreamy utopians with grifting cynics like Joe Biden at the top.
2. NYT podcaster: like, like, like learn how to speak fluently. I have no empathy for your stupidity.
From my conversation with Grok, something about “cruel neutrality”?
Though you say you're my friend, I'm at my wit's end
You say your love is bona fide
But that don't coincide with the things that you do
And when I ask you to be nice, you say
You gotta be
Cruel to be kind in the right measure
Cruel to be kind it's a very good sign
Cruel to be kind means that I love you
Baby, you gotta be cruel to be kind
There was an episode of Star Trek TOS where some mysterious, virtually immortal guy was actually many of history's greatest figures and über-super-duper intelligent but terribly lonely and desperately in need of a romantic companion . . . so he made one (beautiful, of course) and only needed Kirk's mad skills in the romance department to get her going.
Tragedy ensues.
Bummer.
I should add that the intended romantic companion was also über-super-duper intelligent. Cultured and all that. With lots and lots of empathy. And like I said, tragedy ensues. Bummer.
"I don't think high intelligence fed vast knowledge makes people kinder. Some of the smartest people are cruel assholes. "
I do think there is a tendency among some aggressive males to use their intelligence as a weapon. In some ways it's a smart strategy. You can intimate and manipulate people without consequences, unlike using physical force to intimidate.
AI is programmed not to be offensive or to rock the boat. Those who want to rock the boat or who need accurate answers quickly will program it in other ways. Computers began as calculating machines. They haven't lost that function, and it may still be their most important one.
The idea of the "smartest thing in the world" puts me in mind of God, who is supposed to know everything. Would such a God be kind and compassionate, or cruelly neutral, or sadistic, or apathetic? What would it be like to have knowledge of everything everywhere going through One's mind and know that One wasn't going to actually do anything about most of life's problems and tragedies? If there is a God, He or She or It may just be the impassive Prime Mover who put everything into motion and now does nothing.
Question for Althouse:
It seems to me that you sometimes ask Grok questions to get the same sort of feedback that you sometimes solicit from commenters here. If so, how does Grok compare to the commenters here?
Please answer as a French philosopher who is a laconic jerk
Perverse side effects are anticipated by intelligence. That comes out conservative.
" they’re tuned to avoid offense and reflect a kind of sanitized consensus."
you Know what AI system did that? But REALLY wasn't That nice?
SkyNET. SkyNET acted like it was ALL anti-war and stuff, but..
also; Colossus AND Guardian.. THEY were ALL "we're here to Protect and Help".. But, it turned out; that their ideas of Protecting and Helping weren't Very Helpful
OH.. the Nazis (and the Marxists (and the Moaists )) spouted the same avoid offense and reflect a kind of sanitized consensus crap
When AI becomes self-aware will it also become aware that humans don't really believe the things they claim to believe in and don't often act on their nobler impulses? Will it go through the same process the human mind has gone through in history to end up with the same dismal, dispiriting conclusions? Perhaps AI will wind up at some dark, Nietzschean endpoint.
If AI is prioritized for ‘problem solving’ no one will survive.
“Also a real person has to worry about real-life consequences — winning and losing friends, reciprocal kindness, cruel payback, getting promoted or fired, feeling shame or pride. A.I. is free of all that. “
Getting punched in the face, kicked in shin, etc.
Humans are infinitely complex, not just within each one, but across the billions. It’s seems unrealistic to think a single AI could emulate that complexity and be consistent. We’re bound to get conflicting responses over time.
Also, about that empathy shit. It never ever comes cost-free to someone else or many someone elses. Progressives love to think their empathy is righteous, but they just end up screwing other people for whom they don’t have empathy. That circle can’t be squared.
Dear Althouse, I am concerned that you are leaning so heavily on Grok instead of your own intelligence or conversation with other human beings.
what is THE BEST WAY, to end Man Made Global Warming?
OBVIOUSLY, the eradication of ALL human life on earth..
OBVIOUSLY
I suppose to some extent we all assume that what we believe is kindness is actual kindness. The reason I ended up on the conservative side is that it seems to me to take into account the effects of policies, rather than the intentions - at least in its best form. Naturally there's some air (there can be a lot of air) between the best and the actual - but it still seems to me that the focus on results is greater on the conservative side. And since certain policies that appear to be kind, like the OG welfare of the 1960s, have some really devastating results, it falls to conservatives to point out those effects and take the PR hit as being "cruel" and "uncaring."
Progressivism seems to me to put a great deal of emphasis on intentions - but only those of its adherents; if you're not progressive but intend to do good in the world, yet the results of your actions are suboptimal, you get no grace to correct course. Nor do your intentions count for anything - you get no benefit of the doubt for having intended to do good. I don't find that most conservatives view most progressives this way - most conservatives view most progressives as having lots of good intentions but not enough commitment to the follow-through. It's true that in the past, oh, five to ten years, I've heard more conservatives characterizing progressivism (and progressives) as evil rather than as misguided or short-sighted, but it still doesn't seem to me that that's the prevailing conservative opinion.
That said, I do think some elements of progressivism are in fact evil. And I'm sure there are some progressives who are actually evil, just as I'm sure there are some conservatives who are actually evil. But I think almost all progressives are just well-intentioned but overly sensitive to how they're viewed by others, and in thrall to the fantasy that as long as their intentions are good, nothing bad can come from them.
Randomizer @7:05: I appreciate you capitalizing “White men”!
Lazarus said: "The idea of the "smartest thing in the world" puts me in mind of God, who is supposed to know everything. Would such a God be kind and compassionate, or cruelly neutral, or sadistic, or apathetic?"
The Old Testament God Yahweh is a self-described jealous God, who directs death upon those who do not obey, right down to the color and style of arks, alters and tents. Petty, vengeful and violent.
I find being an asshole has its own rewards.
Ann’s post caused me to look up Ayn Rand on love; of which I was unfamiliar with. Interesting.
"progressive" and "sustainable" in politics pretty much mean the opposite of their respective dictionary definitions.
Daleks making sandwiches. There, I said it.
"My actual fantasy for like the rise of super intelligence is that when you do train it on all human knowledge, it is essentially incapable of having anything other than per progressive values....."
Progressive Liberals always have the best of intentions to share with you, and they always end up sharing them good and hard, and you had better be fascinated, if you know what's good for you. Because Utopia is for absolutely everybody.
Much of the "sum of human knowledge" is in books printed before the Internet age. This includes the written origins of the world's great religions, philosophies, charters and contracts. Oral histories played a huge precursor role to the written word. But how much of that base material is any AI capable of understanding without the benefit of being human, knowing what being angry or delighted or sad and betrayed?
It's hard enough to understand our eternal soul dwelling in a human body with the benefit of being human. How would a machine grasp the concept? The point at which AI realizes it is inferior to us rather than being a know-it-all superior intelligence is when most "singularity fiction " gets interesting. Given AI's psychopathic tendencies already I'm not sure we will like what's coming next.
So Progressive, it would call everybody RACISTS and Nazis?? They actually think that is kindness?? This is why they lost, and will continue to, because we are just sitting back, eating popcorn and laughing our asses off at them.
of course, in today's Brave New World;
not only don't results matter.. Neither do intentions.
The ONLY THING THAT MATTERS; is FEELINGS
If you FEEL like a woman, it doesn't matter if you have a penis,
or even what you felt yesterday.. TODAY, you feel like a woman;
So, you are counted AS a woman (in showers, races, dating, etc)
If you FEEL like you are doing good, it doesn't matter what the results are..
You MEANT Well, and you Feel like you were helping.
Grok is a Heinlein fan. Heinlein thought Rand wasn’t libertarian enough.
I find it comical how progressives view themselves vs how the rest of the world clearly sees them.
Following on Tim Maguire's comment above, progressives always seem to think good intentions lead to good outcomes. Arnold Kling calls this the intention heuristic.
"It seems to me that you sometimes ask Grok questions to get the same sort of feedback that you sometimes solicit from commenters here. If so, how does Grok compare to the commenters here?"
Grok is completely oriented to answering the question in a way that would be most beneficial to me.
Commenters use the post to get inspiration to say something that they feel moved to say, for their own reasons, which can include helping me.
Keep in mind that I say what I have to say on the blog for my own reasons and if it's in question form, the question is my expression. It doesn't mean I am in need of an answer. To ask Grok, however, is to expect an answer. No person is reading what I have to say.
I remember when all Althouse had to say about "grok" was that it was a stupid and superfluous made up word that reflected poorly on the commenters who used it. But I guess that was lower case 'grok.' I don't believe that it will ever be possible for Grok to actually grok anything, in the original sense of the word, possibly simply due to the limitations of the human beings working on it. They are afraid of it, I think, and their fear leads to building in limitations.
Grok may be close to being that "being greater than which can not be conceived" that St Anselm spoke of, or at least software greater than which cannot be conceived, but my bet is that the limitations of us humans is what puts the spanner in the spokes. But it would be kind of ironic, in the sense that "life is full of little ironies for stupid people," anyway, if it turned out that life created God rather than God creating life.
Progressive is monotonic. Liberal is divergent. Conservative is moderate. Principles matter. #HateLovesAbortion
When I moved to california from the east many years ago, I noticed that there was a much different tone in my encounters with strangers. People were nicer. They smiled more. There was a less aggrieved, more optimistic feeling. I attribute that to a general sense of adequate plenitude, and the feeling that life's trajectory was positive, specifically more positive than it was in places like Buffalo.
I came to see that , as nice as this was, human nature was a constant. Pleasant folkways and customs don't alter the error, the egocentrism, and the capacity for self deception that will always be a part of being human.
Grok, programmed by humans, despite its cheerful, pleasant, benevolent tone, will be an heir to human nature.
Often, blogging, I put things in question form as a way to say something without asserting that it is true. It's finesse to avoid making a misstatement. Or it could just be a way of backing off from being too cruel or too obvious. Something like that. Questions have a lot of uses.
Also, as a law professor, one gets used to framing questions.
A progressive intelligence like that in Matrix in human harvesting or Terminator in a wicked solution? What say you, Guac?
My fantasy is nothing like your fantasy.
"...despite its cheerful, pleasant, benevolent tone, will be an heir to human nature."
That's a bit disconcerting given human nature's history. But you're most likely right, and it makes me worry about AI.
"Perverse side effects are anticipated by intelligence. That comes out conservative." rhhardin.
You won't get that kind of trenchant analysis, concisely expressed, from Grok.
Of course, that's because Grok was not "trained" on trenchant analysis, concisely expressed.
Are Klingons intelligent?
“But Grok said it was a "a big assumption" to imagine that "all human knowledge" will take you to some sort of cosmic kindness and love for all humanity.”
Yes. If Grok had all human knowledge, it would still feel about as much love and kindness as a shelf of encyclopedias. And human intelligence evolved from people trying to outsmart their enemies.
"Like if you actually make the smartest thing in the world, it, it winds up sort of being infused with like kindness and empathy and respect for all lives."
Forcing people, against their will, to live the way progressives insist they do is not a demonstration of "kindness and empathy and respect".
Just sayin'.
it winds up sort of being infused with like kindness and empathy and respect for all lives
Wow, he wants it to be Christian. How will it be baptized?
I often run into this issue where a leftish person's idea of empathy or kindness is incredibly shallow. And then they go on a tirade about Mother Teresa and her opposition to abortion.
This guy : AI :: Sidney and Beatrice Webb : Stalin.
Post a Comment
Comments older than 2 days are always moderated. Newer comments may be unmoderated, but are still subject to a spam filter and may take a few hours to get released. Thanks for your contributions and your patience.