8 ms·

So does honesty. So it was still a false claim.

by mcv 25d ago

chrisjj 25d ago
Honesty does not require intelligence e.g. good honest food. The main problem with this claim of dishonesty is it promotes the false marketing claim that these stochastic parrots have intelligence.
- deleted 25d ago
  [deleted]
- moritzwarhier 25d ago
  I think you misunderstand the phrase "honest food". It's not about the bread being honest with you. Are you being serious?
ben_w 25d ago
Squirrels have been observed performing deception against other squirrels. Dis/honesty certainly requires some intelligence to pass, but it is a low bar, and one which research has shown that LLMs can perform, e.g. this paper linked from another comment in this discussion: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518
- chrisjj 24d ago
  Paper says "These scenarios underscore a crucial challenge in AI safety: ensuring that LLMs were truthful in the first place." Hard to take seriously any research based on the premise that LLMs were truthful in the first placr. These chatbots have no understanding of truth. They simply parrot their inputs. Where fed falsehoods, they will output falsehoods - with a sprinkling of added fabrications euphemistically excused as "hallucinations".
  - ben_w 24d ago
    > These chatbots have no understanding of truth. Sometimes I forget that for all that my philosophy qualification is mediocre, it is more than most people ever bother with. Outside mathematics (and, I guess, "common sense" definitions that fail under the slightest scrutiny, scrutiny that normal people never bother to give), there is no agreement on "truth", there is only degree of belief and justification for that belief that itself terminates in one of three unsatisfactory ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma > Where fed falsehoods, they will output falsehoods - with a sprinkling of added fabrications euphemistically excused as "hallucinations". Tu quoque. Which would be a fallacious charge if the point were not that "truth" is so hard to define, and that the reason you give for dismissing AI is something that applies to all. (Hallucinations are not excused, they are a failure to be worked around).

So does honesty. So it was still a false claim.

by mcv 25d ago

So does honesty. So it was still a false claim.

Honesty does not require intelligence e.g. good honest food. The main problem with this claim of dishonesty is it promotes the false marketing claim that these stochastic parrots have intelligence.

deleted 25d ago
[deleted]
moritzwarhier 25d ago
I think you misunderstand the phrase "honest food". It's not about the bread being honest with you. Are you being serious?

ben_w 25d ago

Squirrels have been observed performing deception against other squirrels. Dis/honesty certainly requires some intelligence to pass, but it is a low bar, and one which research has shown that LLMs can perform, e.g. this paper linked from another comment in this discussion: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518

chrisjj 24d ago
Paper says "These scenarios underscore a crucial challenge in AI safety: ensuring that LLMs were truthful in the first place." Hard to take seriously any research based on the premise that LLMs were truthful in the first placr. These chatbots have no understanding of truth. They simply parrot their inputs. Where fed falsehoods, they will output falsehoods - with a sprinkling of added fabrications euphemistically excused as "hallucinations".
- ben_w 24d ago
  > These chatbots have no understanding of truth. Sometimes I forget that for all that my philosophy qualification is mediocre, it is more than most people ever bother with. Outside mathematics (and, I guess, "common sense" definitions that fail under the slightest scrutiny, scrutiny that normal people never bother to give), there is no agreement on "truth", there is only degree of belief and justification for that belief that itself terminates in one of three unsatisfactory ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma > Where fed falsehoods, they will output falsehoods - with a sprinkling of added fabrications euphemistically excused as "hallucinations". Tu quoque. Which would be a fallacious charge if the point were not that "truth" is so hard to define, and that the reason you give for dismissing AI is something that applies to all. (Hallucinations are not excused, they are a failure to be worked around).