91–100 of 129 posts
I'm pretty sure it can't even do that, it was inventing tools just to try and argue against me. I eventually found the actor's name through a regular web search.
Lack of permission (or even credit) for its training material.
Competing with human creativity and damaging the market for creative output from real humans, including those whose work was used without permission or compensation to train the system.
People turning off their brains once they start using it.
Idiots who use it for everything (see above.)
Students using it to avoid learning anything.
Acting as if it is human.
Filling the web - and the world - with AI-generated slop.
The resultant, seemingly unavoidable dilution of human culture.
Malicious use by criminals, scammers, advertisers, and everyone else who has it in for you.
AI-driven layoffs and the desire to replace humans with LLMs.
Rubbish chatbots used to replace support staff.
Etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me it's been the opposite. They take on a condescending tone sometimes and sometimes they sound too salesy and trump up their suggestions
Yes, I agree with that as well. Real humans have a spectrum of assuredness that naturally comes across in the conversation. With an LLM it's too easy to get drawn deep into the weeds. For example, I may propose that I use a generalized framework to approach a certain problem. In a real conversation, this may just be part of the creative process, and with time the thoughts may shift back to the actual hard data (and p…
/s
#1 problem is how sycophantic they are. I in fact want the exact opposite sort of interaction, where they push back against my ideas and actively try to correct and improve my thinking. Too often I am misled into giant waste of time because they have this need to please coded in to their default response structure. You can say things like "you are a robot, you have no emotions, don't try to act human", but the output…
#1 problem is how sycophantic they are. I in fact want the exact opposite sort of interaction, where they push back against my ideas and actively try to correct and improve my thinking. Too often I am misled into giant waste of time because they have this need to please coded in to their default response structure. You can say things like "you are a robot, you have no emotions, don't try to act human", but the output…
I've found the same thing with Claude Sonnet 4. I suggest something, it says great suggestion and agrees with me. I then ask it about the opposite approach and it says great job raising that and agrees with that too. I have no idea which is more correct in the end.