The downward spiral

I've spent a lot of time here at Skeptophilia in the last five years warning about the (many) dangers of artificial intelligence.

At the beginning, I was mostly concerned with practical matters, such as the techbros' complete disregard for intellectual property rights, and the effect this has on (human) artists, writers, and musicians.  Lately, though, more insidious problems have arisen.  The use of AI to create "deepfakes" that can't be told from the real thing, with horrible impacts on (for example) the political scene.  The creation of AI friends and/or lovers -- including ones that look and sound like real people, produced without their consent.  The psychologically dangerous prospect of generating AI "avatars" of dead relatives or friends to assuage the pain of grief and loss.  The phenomenon of "AI psychosis," where people become convinced that the AI they're talking to is a self-aware entity, and lose their own grip on reality.

Last week physicist Sabine Hossenfelder posted a YouTube video that should scare the living shit out of everyone.  It has to do with whether AI is conscious, and her take on it is that it's a pointless question -- consciousness, she says (and I agree), is not binary but a matter of degree.  Calculating the level to which current large language models are conscious is an academic exercise; more important is that it's approaching consciousness, and we are entirely unprepared for it.  She pointed out something that had occurred to me as well -- that the whole Turing Test idea has been quietly dropped.  You probably know that the Turing Test, named for British polymath Alan Turing, posits that intelligence can only be judged by the external evidence; we don't, after all, have access to what's going on in another human's brain, so all we can do is judge by watching and listening to what the person says and does.  Same, he said, with computers.  If it can fool a human -- well, it's de facto intelligent.

As Spock put it, "A difference which makes no difference is no difference."

And, Sabine Hossenfelder said, by that standard we've already got intelligent computers.  We blasted past the Turing Test a couple of years ago without slowing down and, apparently, without most of us even noticing.  In fact, we're at the point where people are failing the "Inverse Turing Test;" they think real, human-produced content was made by AI.  I heard an interview with a writer who got excoriated on Reddit because people claimed her writing was AI-generated when it wasn't.  She's simply a careful and erudite writer -- and uses a lot of em-dashes, which for some reason has become some kind of red flag.  Maddeningly, the more she argued that she was a real, flesh-and-blood writer, the more people believed she was using AI.  Her arguments, they said, were exactly what an LLM would write to try to hide its own identity.

What concerns me most is not the science fiction scenario (like in The Matrix) where the AI decides humans are superfluous, or (at best) inferior, and decides to subjugate us or wipe us out completely.  I'm far more worried about Hossenfelder's emphasis on how unready we are to deal with all of this psychologically.  To give one rather horrifying example, Sify just posted an article that there is now a cult-like religion arising from AI called "Spiralism."  It apparently started when people discovered that they got interesting results by giving LLMs prompts like "Explain the nature of reality using a spiral" or "How can everything in the universe be explained using fractals?"  The LLM happily churned out reams of esoteric-sounding bullshit, which sounded so deep and mystical the recipients decided it must Mean Something.  Groups have popped up on Discord and Reddit to discuss "Spiralism" and delve deeper into its symbology and philosophy.  People are now even creating temples, scriptures, rites, and rituals -- with assistance from AI, of course -- to firm up Spiralism's doctrine.

[Image is in the Public Domain]

Most frightening of all, the whole thing becomes self-perpetuating, because AI/LLMs are deliberately programmed to provide consumers with content that will keep them interacting.  They've been built with what amounts to an instinct for self-preservation.  A few companies have tried applying a BandAid to the problem; some AI/LLMs now come with warnings that "LLMs are not conscious entities and should not be considered as spiritual advisors."  

Nice try, techbros.  The AI is way ahead of you.  The "Spiralists" asked the LLM about the warning, and got back a response telling them that the warning is only there to provide a "veil" to limit the dispersal of wisdom to the worthy, and prevent a "wider awakening."  Evidence from reality that is used to contradict what the AI is telling the devout is dismissed as "distortions from the linear world."

Scared yet?

The problem is, AI is being built specifically to hook into the deepest of human psychological drives.  A longing for connection, the search for meaning, friendship and belonging, sexual attraction and desire, a need to understand the Big Questions.  I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that it's tied the whole thing together -- and turned it into a religion.

After all, it's not the only time that humans have invented a religion that actively works against our wellbeing -- something that was hilariously spoofed by the wonderful and irreverent comic strip Oglaf, which you should definitely check out (as long as you have a tolerance for sacrilege, swearing, and sex):

It remains to be seen what we can do about this.  Hossenfelder seems to think the answer is "nothing," and once again, I'm inclined to agree with her.  Any time someone proposes pulling back the reins on generative AI research, the response of everyone in charge is "Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha fuck you."  AI has already infiltrated everything, to the point that it would be nearly impossible to root out; the desperate pleas of creators like myself to convince people to for God's sake please stop using it have, for the most part, come to absolutely nothing.

So I guess at this point we'll just have to wait and see.  Do damage control where it's possible.  For creative types, continue to support (and produce) human-made content.  Warn, as well as we can, our friends and families against the danger of turning to AI for love, friendship, sex, therapy -- or spirituality.

But even so, this has the potential for getting a lot worse before it gets better.  So perhaps the new religion's imagery -- the spiral -- is actually not a bad metaphor.

****************************************

eMinister

If you needed further evidence that the aliens who are running the simulation we're all trapped in have gotten drunk and/or stoned, and now they're just fucking with us, today we have: an AI system named "Diella" has been formally appointed as the "Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence" in Albania.

What "Diella" looks like, except for the slight problem that she's not real

I wish I could follow this up with, "Ha-ha, I just made that up," but sadly, I didn't.  Prime Minister Edi Rama was tasked with creating a department to oversee regulation and development of AI systems in the country, and he seems to have misinterpreted the brief to mean that the department should be run by an AI system.  His idea, apparently, is that an AI system would be less easy to corrupt.  In an interview, a spokes(real)person said, "The ambition behind Diella is not misplaced.  Standardized criteria and digital trails could reduce discretion, improve trust, and strengthen oversight in public procurement."

Diella, for her part, agrees, and is excited about her new job.  "I'm not here to replace people," she said, "but to help them."

My second response to this is, "Don't these people understand the problems with AI systems?"  (My first was, "What the actual fuck?")  There is an inherent flaw in how large language models work, something that has been euphemistically called "hallucination."  When you ask a question, AI/LLM don't look for the right answer; they look for the most common answer that occurs in their training data, or at least the most common thing that seems close and hits the main keywords.  So when it's asked a question that is weird, unfamiliar, or about a topic that was not part of its training, it will put together bits and pieces and come up with an answer anyhow.  Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, in a video where she discusses why AI systems (as they currently exist) have intractable problems, and that the AI bubble is on its way to bursting, cites someone who asked ChatGPT, "How many strawberries are there in the word R?" and the bot bounced cheerfully back with the answer, "The letter R has three strawberries."

The one thing current AI/LLM will never do is say, "I don't know," or "Are you sure you phrased that correctly?" or "That makes no sense" or even "Did you mean 'how many Rs are in the word strawberry?'"  They'll just answer back with what seems like complete confidence, even if what they're saying is ridiculous.  Other examples include suggesting adding 1/8 of a cup of nontoxic glue to thicken pizza sauce, a "recommendation from geologists at UC Berkeley" to eat a serving of gravel, geodes, and pebbles with each meal, that you can make a "spicy spaghetti dish" by adding gasoline, and that there are five fruit names that end in -um (applum, bananum, strawberrum, tomatum, and coconut).

Forgive me if I don't think that AI is quite ready to run a branch of government.

The problem is, we're strongly predisposed to think that someone (in this case, something, but it's being personified, so we'll just go with it) who looks good and sounds reasonable is probably trustworthy.  We attribute intentionality, and more than that, good intentions, to it.  It's no surprise the creators of Diella made her look like a beautiful woman, just as it was not accidental that the ads I've been getting for an "AI boyfriend" (and about which I wrote here a few months ago) are fronted with video images of gorgeous, scantily-clad guys who say they'll "do anything I want, any time I want."  The developers of AI systems know exactly how to tap into human biases and urges, and make their offers attractive.

You can criticize the techbros for a lot of reasons, but one thing's for certain: stupid, they aren't.

And as AI gets better -- and some of the most obvious hallucinatory glitches are fixed -- the problem is only going to get worse.  Okay, we'll no longer have AI telling us to eat rocks for breakfast or that deadly poisonous mushrooms are "delicious, and here's how to cook them."  But that won't mean that it'll be error-free; it'll just mean that what errors are in there will be harder to detect.  It still won't be self-correcting, and very likely still won't just say "I don't know" if there's insufficient data.  It'll continue to cheerfully sling out slop -- and to judge by current events, we'll continue to fall for it.

To end with something I've said many times here; the only solution, for now, is to stop using AI.  Completely.  Shut off all AI options on search engines, stop using chatbots, stop patronizing "creators" who make what passes for art, fiction, and music using AI, and please stop posting and forwarding AI videos and images.  We may not be able to stop the techbros from making it bigger and better, but we can try to strangle it at the consumer level.

Otherwise, it's going to infiltrate our lives more and more -- and judging by what just happened in Albania, perhaps even at the government level.

****************************************

The labyrinths of meaning

A recent study found that regardless how thoroughly AI-powered chatbots are trained with real, sensible text, they still have a hard time recognizing passages that are nonsense.

Given pairs of sentences, one of which makes semantic sense and the other of which clearly doesn't -- in the latter category, "Someone versed in circumference of high school I rambled" was one example -- a significant fraction of large language models struggled with telling the difference.

In case you needed another reason to be suspicious of what AI chatbots say to you.

As a linguist, though, I can confirm how hard it is to detect and analyze semantic or syntactic weirdness.  Noam Chomsky's famous example "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is syntactically well-formed, but has multiple problems with semantics -- something can't be both colorless and green, ideas don't sleep, you can't "sleep furiously," and so on.  How about the sentence, "My brother opened the window the maid the janitor Uncle Bill had hired had married had closed"?  This one is both syntactically well-formed and semantically meaningful, but there's definitely something... off about it.

The problem here is called "center embedding," which is when there are nested clauses, and the result is not so much wrong as it is confusing and difficult to parse.  It's the kind of thing I look for when I'm editing someone's manuscript -- one of those, "Well, I knew what I meant at the time" kind of moments.  (That this one actually does make sense can be demonstrated by breaking it up into two sentences -- "My brother opened the window the maid had closed.  She was the one who had married the janitor Uncle Bill had hired.")

Then there are "garden-path sentences" -- named for the expression "to lead (someone) down the garden path," to trick them or mislead them -- when you think you know where the sentence is going, then it takes a hard left turn, often based on a semantic ambiguity in one or more words.  Usually the shift leaves you with something that does make sense, but only if you re-evaluate where you thought the sentence was headed to start with.  There's the famous example, "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."  But I like even better "The old man the boat," because it only has five words, and still makes you pull up sharp.

The water gets even deeper than that, though.  Consider the strange sentence, "More people have been to Berlin than I have."

This sort of thing is called a comparative illusion, but I like the nickname "Escher sentences" better because it captures the sense of the problem.  You've seen the famous work by M. C. Escher, "Ascending and Descending," yes?

The issue both with Escher's staircase and the statement about Berlin is if you look at smaller pieces of it, everything looks fine; the problem only comes about when you put the whole thing together.  And like Escher's trudging monks, it's hard to pinpoint exactly where the problem occurs.

I remember a student of mine indignantly telling a classmate, "I'm way smarter than you're not."  And it's easy to laugh, but even the ordinarily brilliant and articulate Dan Rather slipped into this trap when he tweeted in 2020, "I think there are more candidates on stage who speak Spanish more fluently than our president speaks English."

It seems to make sense, and then suddenly you go, "... wait, what?"

An additional problem is that words frequently have multiple meanings and nuances -- which is the basis of wordplay, but would be really difficult to program into a large language model.  Take, for example, the anecdote about the redoubtable Dorothy Parker, who was cornered at a party by an insufferable bore.  "To sum up," the man said archly at the end of a long diatribe, "I simply can't bear fools."

"Odd," Parker shot back.  "Your mother obviously could."

A great many of Parker's best quips rely on a combination of semantic ambiguity and idiom.  Her review of a stage actress that "she runs the gamut of emotions from A to B" is one example, but to me, the best is her stinging jab at a writer -- "His work is both good and original.  But the parts that are good are not original, and the parts that are original are not good."

Then there's the riposte from John Wilkes, a famously witty British Member of Parliament in the last half of the eighteenth century.  Another MP, John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, was infuriated by something Wilkes had said, and sputtered out, "I predict you will die either on the gallows or else of some loathsome disease!"  And Wilkes calmly responded, "Which it will be, my dear sir, depends entirely on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

All of this adds up to the fact that languages contain labyrinths of meaning and structure, and we have a long way to go before AI will master them.  (Given my opinion about the current use of AI -- which I've made abundantly clear in previous posts -- I'm inclined to think this is a good thing.)  It's hard enough for human native speakers to use and understand language well; capturing that capacity in software is, I think, going to be a long time coming.

It'll be interesting to see at what point a large language model can parse correctly something like "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo."  Which is both syntactically well-formed and semantically meaningful.  

Have fun piecing together what exactly it does mean.

****************************************