161–170 of 548 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody who is starving decides to just go through the drive through. Fast food is convenient, that's it.
Convenient, inexpensive, delicious. You might personally disagree on any of those points but for enough people it’s true.
Really don’t like the idea that we will act as interfaces for the AI, I honestly believe it will only many the majority of people lazier and dumber. I’m also incredibly shocked that no one is talking about AI as a friend/companion, that has to not be good for you in the long run. Humans need real human connection, AI is too artificial for that (duh). Having AI friends will be equivalent to consuming fast food instead…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Having AI friends will be equivalent to consuming fast food instead of healthy home cooked meals growing up A person who is starving will do better with fast food than with no food at all. It's far from ideal, but for some people this will make their lives marginally more tolerable.
On a similar note, I'll take the AI medical advice any day of the week. Had a buddy describe a difficult morning and I opened chatGPT to diagnose, it suggested he had a stroke. My buddy was not going to the hospital because its so expensive, but since chatGPT said it was a stroke, and his symptoms matched the stroke, he went to the hospital. He had a stroke. On a similar note, I am stable and don't need therapy, but…
Really don’t like the idea that we will act as interfaces for the AI, I honestly believe it will only many the majority of people lazier and dumber. I’m also incredibly shocked that no one is talking about AI as a friend/companion, that has to not be good for you in the long run. Humans need real human connection, AI is too artificial for that (duh). Having AI friends will be equivalent to consuming fast food instead…
I’m working on a startup that’s training LLMs to be authentic so they can simulate human affection and it’s actually working really well! The key is humanity’s ability to pattern match: we’re actually pretty terrible at it. Our brains are so keen on finding patterns that they often spot them where none exist. Remember the face on Mars? It was just a pile of rocks. The same principle applies here. As long as the AI so…
I actually think this is the wrong approach. You should simulate furry affection. Roleplay is the new cuddle.
(but unironically cries in every open-source LLM being bad at it)
We may not be ready but we may as well get ready. I would strongly prefer to work with skeptical people again. Skeptics can be convinced, they just need evidence. Although I am genuinely intrigued by AI running out of things to ingest, and moving onto AI generated content. Is the snake starting to eat its tail?
> Skeptics can be convinced, they just need evidence The past couple of years has convinced me this is 100% untrue. People are very capable of ignoring evidence, in favour of something that: a) reinforces previously held beliefs b) allows them to remain in a social group
Most people believe what they are told at face value.
I stop just short of Feynman questioning the dentist on the evidence for brushing one's teeth. That there is potentially this ritual that goes around the globe as the sun rises of people pointlessly scrubbing their teeth.
Of course, with such a high % of people addicted in a clinical sense to the group think and propaganda engine of social media that is not how most people are going to think or even be capable of thinking.
If Feynman was more popular youtube would ban that video for dentistry misinformation even when the point of the video is to view things from a different perspective.
The comment by Yuval Noah Harari seemed insightful to me. If you argue against a bot about a political matter, not knowing it’s a bot - you always lose on a long enough timeline. ie you can never pursuade the bot but it can wear you down / eventually find an argument that works. The only winning move is not to play. So I could see this having a chilling effect on all discourse Aside from the whole skynet thing the ab…
I think this interchange of thought and sharing of ideas is the true essence of discourse. That other thing is more of a verbal tribal battle. I can see issues with bots swinging the political landscape in ways that cause harm, but I think there is good reason to think discourse might flourish. Fundamentally, if the competitive arguers are discouraged, whilst the curious and conversational are encouraged, or at least not hurt, then discourse itself wins.
The comment by Yuval Noah Harari seemed insightful to me. If you argue against a bot about a political matter, not knowing it’s a bot - you always lose on a long enough timeline. ie you can never pursuade the bot but it can wear you down / eventually find an argument that works. The only winning move is not to play. So I could see this having a chilling effect on all discourse Aside from the whole skynet thing the ab…
The chilling effect may actually be a good thing, given that discourse these days is overheated. There's a weird magic trick that social media companies have played on people to convince them that the text and images consumed on their websites are socially/culturally/politically relevant. Once it becomes clear how easy it is to fake that text people will come to understand how cheap and irrelevant "opinion" has becom…
The comment by Yuval Noah Harari seemed insightful to me. If you argue against a bot about a political matter, not knowing it’s a bot - you always lose on a long enough timeline. ie you can never pursuade the bot but it can wear you down / eventually find an argument that works. The only winning move is not to play. So I could see this having a chilling effect on all discourse Aside from the whole skynet thing the ab…
PS Intended as a lighthearted jab, please don't get offended.
The comment by Yuval Noah Harari seemed insightful to me. If you argue against a bot about a political matter, not knowing it’s a bot - you always lose on a long enough timeline. ie you can never pursuade the bot but it can wear you down / eventually find an argument that works. The only winning move is not to play. So I could see this having a chilling effect on all discourse Aside from the whole skynet thing the ab…
You may not ever be able to persuade a bot, but you can identify if it is capable of repudiating your points or not. You can ascertain if it is arguing in good faith and chose to end an argument if it isn’t. When you say “find an argument that works” isn’t this just saying that they’ve said something you find persuasive? What’s wrong with this? How is this different to any other argument in good faith?
Really don’t like the idea that we will act as interfaces for the AI, I honestly believe it will only many the majority of people lazier and dumber. I’m also incredibly shocked that no one is talking about AI as a friend/companion, that has to not be good for you in the long run. Humans need real human connection, AI is too artificial for that (duh). Having AI friends will be equivalent to consuming fast food instead…
I’m working on a startup that’s training LLMs to be authentic so they can simulate human affection and it’s actually working really well! The key is humanity’s ability to pattern match: we’re actually pretty terrible at it. Our brains are so keen on finding patterns that they often spot them where none exist. Remember the face on Mars? It was just a pile of rocks. The same principle applies here. As long as the AI so…