logoalt Hacker News

openasocket • today at 4:02 PM • 12 replies • view on HN

I find this research odd because I don’t know what field of study to call this. It’s not computer science. It’s almost like behavioral psychology, but for AI agents instead of humans or animals. That said, I feel like these studies lack a lot of rigor. Or maybe it’s a lack of clear direction. Like, what are we trying to determine here? Because these things often involve advanced AI agents and complex harnesses, but then it sounds like they are given a very minimal prompt. What are we really studying then? Would the outcome be completely different with a different prompt? Can we generalize these results to other models? Different generations of models, different levels of thinking? What if we tried fine-tuning the model to this scenario? Is this fundamentally how any LLM would act, or is this some artifact of our current, generalized fine-tuning?


Replies

andsoitis • today at 5:00 PM

> I find this research odd because I don’t know what field of study to call this.

Probably multiple with very complex system dynamics, feedback loops: Cliodynamics, Cultural evolution, Cultural anthropology, Archaeology, Sociology Political science, Institutional economics, Urban planning, Complexity science, Social ecology

acbart • today at 4:07 PM

Asimov predicted "Robopsychology".

bor3dnrd • today at 4:25 PM

Computers science is just applied math, has nothing to do with the machine.

The term computer was coined to describe humans engaged in applied math jobs before the machines existed.

The models are matrices of values engaged in reducing options to the most desired outcome given inputs. That's software dev.

"Fundamentally" or "fine tune" is meaningless; no model spontaneously emerged through a membrane from another reality. They’re all fine tuned from nothing into a model or from a general model to a specialized one.

You're circumlocuting semantics to say something for social media, but the physical provenance is clear. They're not of mythical origin and it's still math relative to set of memory values.

freakynit • today at 4:59 PM

I think large LLMs can be seen as a representation of humanity's collective thought processes... almost as if humanity were a single entity.

They have read pretty much everything we have ever written, good and bad, so they're kind of a mirror of us, as a species. Not a perfect one, but still.

Aliens could probably use a llm to get a crash course on what humans are actually like, and how to interact with them.

➕ show 1 reply
ModernMech • today at 6:06 PM

Computational sociology? I imagine a model of society could come out of this, then you could create hypothetical societies and see how they behave.

karhuton • today at 5:05 PM

Well, obviously Psychology + (computer) science = Scientology

smrtinsert • today at 6:06 PM

The label might come later, but cooperative or adverserial behavioral patterns matter deeply when deploying agents to act as weapons of defense or business builders.

bradishungry • today at 4:46 PM

it’s just machine learning but instead of doing things the old fashioned way everyone just uses llms now. this is nothing new

classified • today at 4:45 PM

Never trust an experiment you haven't faked yourself.

adammarples • today at 4:16 PM

I'm not sure it's that serious, but they did have two models, Claude and gpt were on opposing teams.

threethirtytwo • today at 4:49 PM

It’s the same way psychology works on humans. Black box observational stuff.

You can’t generalize anything here because the psychology of the model can be affected by system prompt, reinforcement training, and training data. What you observe here can be wildly different if you change any of the underlying things I mentioned.

It’s like watching an ant colony.

iLoveOncall • today at 6:09 PM

Call it what it is: slop.

It has zero intrinsic value beyond the headline. The whole goal is to market LLMs if the result is successful.

➕ show 1 reply