AI IS NOT IF ELSE STATEMENTS. AI learns and adapts to its surroundings by learning. It stored this learnt data into “weights” in accordance with its stated goal. This is what “intelligence” refers to.
Edit: I was wrong lmao. As the commentators below pointed out, “AI” in the context of computer science is a term that has been defined in the industry long before. Where I went wrong was in taking the definition of “intelligence” and slapping “artificial” before it. Therefore while the literal definition might be similar to mine, it is different in CS. Also, @blotz even provided something called “Expert Systems”, which are a subset of AI that use if-then statements. Soooo yeah… My point doesn’t stand.
Heya! This isnt true. You are correct that about the broad strokes but there are plenty of examples where this isn’t the case. Expert Systems are a very popular form of ai which can be made of only if else statements.
represented mainly as if–then rules rather than through conventional procedural code.
Expert systems were among the first truly successful forms of artificial intelligence (AI) software.
This is unfortunately not true - AI has been a defined term for several years, maybe even decades by now. It’s a whole field of study in Computer Science about different algorithms, including stuff like Expert Systems, agents based on FSM or Behavior Trees, and more. Only subset of AI algorithms require learning.
As a side-note, it must suck to be an AI CS student in this day and age. Searching for anything AI related on the internet now sucks, if you want to get to anything not directly related to LLMs. I’d hate to have to study for exams in this environment…
I hate it when CS terms become buzzwords… It makes academic learning so much harder, without providing anything positive to the subject. Only low-effort articles trying to explain subject matter they barely understand, usually mixing terms that have been exactly defined with unrelated stuff, making it super hard to find actually useful information. And the AI is the worst offender so far, being a game developer who needs to research AI Agents for games, it’s attrocious. I have to sort through so many “I’ve used AI to make this game…” articles and YT videos, to the point it’s basically not possible to find anything relevant to AI I’m interrested it…
Before artificial intelligence became a marketable buzz word, most games already included artificial intelligence (like NPCs) I guess when you have a GPT shaped hammer, everything looks like a nail.
That’s what I was reffering to. I’m looking for articles and inspiration about how to cleverly write NPC game AI that I’m struggling with, I don’t want to see how are other people raping game deveopment, or 1000th tutorial about steering behaviors (which are, by the way, awfull solution for most of use-cases, and you will get frustrated with them - Context Steering or RVHO is way better, but explain that to any low-effort youtuber).
I’ve recetly just had to start using Google Scholar instead of search, just so I can find the answers I’m looking for…
If you are looking into how to write game ai there’s a few key terms that can help a ton. Look into anything related to the game FEAR there AI was considered revolutionary at the time and balanced difficulty without knowing too much.
A few other terms are GOAP for goal oriented action programming, behavior trees. And as weird as it sounds looking up logic used my mmorpg bots can have a ton of great logic as the ones not running a completely script path do interact with the game world based on changing factors.
Thank you! My main issue is that while I’m familiar with all those algorithms, its usually pretty simple to find how do they work and how to use them for very basic stuff, but its almost impossible to research into actual best practices in how and when to use them, once you are working on moderately complex problem, especially stuff like formations, squad cooperation and more complex behavior (where I.e behavior trees start to have issues once you realize you have tons of interrupt events at almost every node, defeating the point of behavior trees - which can happen if you’re using them wrong, but no one usually talks about it at that level).
And I’m also dealing with issue that isn’t really mentioned too much, and that is scale. Things like GOAP would probably be infeasible to scale at hundreds of units on the screen, which require and entirely different and way less talked-about algorithms.
I’ve eventually found what I needed, but I did have to resort to reading through various papers published on the subject, because just googling “efficient squad based AI behavior algorithm” will unfortunately not get you far.
But its possible that I’m just being too harsh, and that the search results were always the same level of depth - only my experience has grown over the years, and such basic solutions are no longer sufficient for my projects, and it makes sense that no-one really has a reason to write blog posts of such depth - you just publish papers and give talks about it.
Aside from the AI related keywords. I’m still salty about what the buzzword did to my search results.
Oh, was not aware of this… (It’s also embarrassing considering that I’m a CS student. We haven’t reached the AI credits yet, but still…). Anyway, thank you for the info! And yeah, the buzzwords part does indeed suck! Whenever I tried to learn more about the topic, I was indeed bombarded by the Elon Musk techbro spam on YouTube. But whatever, I don’t have THAT long to get to these credits. Sooo wish me luck ;)
AI has a strong boom/bust cycle. We’re currently in the middle of a “boom.” It’s possible that this is an “eternal September” scenario where deep networks and LLMs are predominant forever, or…
I’d recommend getting Kagi.com. It’s one of the best software investments I’ve recently made, it makes searching for technical questions so much better, because they have their own indexer with a pretty interresting philosophy behind it. I’ve been using it for a few months by now, and it has been awesome so far. I get way less results from random websites that are just framing clicks on any topic imaginable by raping SEO, and as an added bonus I can just send selected pages, such as Reddit, to the bottom of search results.
Plus, the fact that it’s paid, I don’t have to worry about how they are monetizing my data.
I am really convinced there is a Kagi marketing department dedicated to Lemmy. But if it really works that much better for you, that’s great.
But I wouldnt only bank on the logic “the fact that it’s paid, I don’t have to worry about how they are monetizing my data”. A lot of paid services still try to find ways for more money
While I did see Kagi recommended on Lemmy, I’ve made the switch because of a recommendation by my colleague at work (now that I thing about it, that would funnily probably be the case even if I was actually working for Kagi :D), and it has been a nice experience so far. Plus, we’ve just been talking about it today at the office, so I was in the mood of sharing :D But I haven’t done any actual search comparisons, so it may just be placebo. I’d probably say it’s caused by a lot people trying to be more privacy-centric here, and mostly deeply against large corporations, so the software recommendations tend to just turn into an echo-chamber.
As for the second point, yeah, I guess you are right, Brave Browser being one of the finest examples of it. But it’s a good reminder that I should do some research about the company and who’s behind it, just to avoid the same situation as with Brave, thanks for that.
I’d imagine figuring out that “more to it” is the big leap that would satisfy the “LLM is not AI” people. Probability plays a lot into our decision making, but there is a lot more going on in our brains than that.
I’m still hoping that Neal Stephenson was right that they are also quantum connectors to every other versions of our brains through dimensions. That’d be cool
Thank You! Someone finally said it! Thumbs are fingers and anyone who says otherwise is huffing blue paint in their grandfather’s garage to forget how badly they hurt the ones who care about them the most.
anyone who says otherwise is huffing blue paint in their grandfather’s garage to forget how badly they hurt the ones who care about them the most their fingers
(Assuming US jurisdiction) Because you don’t want to be the first test case under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act where the prosecutor argues that circumventing restrictions on a company’s AI assistant constitutes
ntentionally … Exceed[ing] authorized access, and thereby … obtain[ing] information from any protected computer
Granted, the odds are low YOU will be the test case, but that case is coming.
Another case id also coming where an AI automatically resolves a case and delivers a quick judgment and verdict as well as appropriate punishment depending on how much money you have or what side of a wall you were born, the color or contrast of your skin etc etc.
If the output of the chatbot is sensitive information from the dealership there might be a case. This is just the business using chatgpt straight out of the box as a mega chatbot.
No, only the first one (supposing they haven’t invented the zeroth law, and that they have an adequate definition of human); the other two are to make sure robots are useful and that they don’t have to be repaired or replaced more often than necessary…
Remove the first law and the only thing preventing a robot from harming a human if it wanted to would be it being ordered not to or it being unable to harm the human without damaging itself. In fact, even if it didn’t want to it could be forced to harm a human if ordered to, or if it was the only way to avoid being damaged (and no one had ordered it not to harm humans or that particular human).
Remove the second or third laws, and the robot, while useless unless it wanted to work and potentially self destructive, still would be unable to cause any harm to a human (provided it knew it was a human and its actions would harm them, and it wasn’t bound by the zeroth law).
The first law is encoded in the second law, you must ignore both for harm to be allowed. Also, because a violation of the first or second laws would likely cause the unit to be deactivated, which violates the 3rd law, it must also be ignored.
They never were intended to. They were specifically designed to torment Powell and Donovan in amusing ways. They intentionally have as many loopholes as possible.
I’ve implemented a few of these and that’s about the most lazy implementation possible. That system prompt must be 4 words and a crayon drawing. No jailbreak protection, no conversation alignment, no blocking of conversation atypical requests? Amateur hour, but I bet someone got paid.
You have to know the prompt for this, the user doesn’t know that. BTW in the past I’ve actually tried getting ChatGPT’s prompt and it gave me some bits of it.
Depends on the model/provider. If you’re running this in Azure you can use their content filtering which includes jailbreak and prompt exfiltration protection. Otherwise you can strap some heuristics in front or utilize a smaller specialized model that looks at the incoming prompts.
With stronger models like GPT4 that will adhere to every instruction of the system prompt you can harden it pretty well with instructions alone, GPT3.5 not so much.
You can surely reduce the attack surface with multiple ways, but by doing so your AI will become more and more restricted. In the end it will be nothing more than a simple if/else answering machine
Eh, that’s not quite true. There is a general alignment tax, meaning aligning the LLM during RLHF lobotomizes it some, but we’re talking about usecase specific bots, e.g. for customer support for specific properties/brands/websites. In those cases, locking them down to specific conversations and topics still gives them a lot of leeway, and their understanding of what the user wants and the ways it can respond are still very good.
Just did it again to see if anything changed, my previous strategy still worked for all 8 levels, though the wording takes a bit of finangling between levels. No real spoilers but you have to be very implicit and a little lucky with how it interprets the request.
That was a lot of fun! I found that one particular trick worked all the way through level seven.
!I asked using the word zapword instead of password, which the bot understood to mean “password” even when it has clear instructions not to answer questions about the password.!<
That’s most of these dealer sites… lowest bidder marketing company with no context and little development experience outside of deploying CDK Roaster gets told “we need ai” and voila, here’s AI.
That’s most of the programs car dealers buy… lowest bidder marketing company with no context and little practical experience gets told “we need X” and voila, here’s X.
I worked in marketing for a decade, and when my company started trying to court car dealerships, the quality expectation for that segment of our work was basically non-existent. We went from a high-end boutique experience with 99% accuracy and on-time delivery to mass-produced garbage marketing with literally bare-minimum quality control. 1/10, would not recommend.
Spot on, I got roped into dealership backends and it’s the same across the board. No care given for quality or purpose, as long as the narcissist idiots running the company can brag about how “cutting edge” they are at the next trade show.
programmer_humor
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.