151–160 of 297 posts
If something as obvious as harmful sycophancy can slip out so easily, what subtle harms are being introduced. It's like lead in paint (and gasoline) except rewiring our very brains. We won't know the real problems for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I think most smart people overestimate the intelligence of others for a variety of reasons so they overestimate what it would take for a LLM to beat the output of an average person. I think most people also _vastly_ overestimate how much positive attention the average person gets in their lives It wouldn't surprise me if, for most people, ChatGPT offers them more empathy and understanding than _anyone_ else _ever ha…
>We can argue over whether or not it's "real" empathy There's nothing to argue about, it's unambiguously not real empathy. Empathy from a human exists in a much broader context of past and future interactions. One reason human empathy is nice is because it is often followed up with actions. Friends who care about you will help you out in material ways when you need it. Even strangers will. Someone who sees a person s…
And it's getting worse year after year, as our society gets more isolated. Look at trends in pig butchering, for instance: a lot of these are people so incredibly lonely and unhappy that they fall into the world's most obvious scam. AI is one of the few things that actually looks like it could work, so I think realistically it doesn't matter that it's not real empathy. At the same time, Sam Altman looks like the kind of guy who could be equally effective as a startup CEO or running a butchering op in Myanmar, so I hope like hell the market fragments more.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One concern that I do worry about is if LLMs are able to present an false attractive view of the world that the user will become increasingly dependent on the LLMs to maintain that view. A cult of 1. Reminds me of the episode 'Safe Space' from South Park but instead of Butters filtering content it'll be the LLM. People are already divorced enough from reality - but I see no reason why they couldn't be more divorced,…
It begs the question of who decides what “reality” is though. A lot of people have an unrealistically negative view of themselves and their abilities—often based on spending time around pessimistic or small-minded humans. In that case, if an AI increases someone’s confidence in themselves, you could say it’s giving them a stronger sense of reality by helping them to question distorted and self-limiting beliefs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, in my circles its an assumption you’re in therapy. Perhaps this says way more about the circles I’m in that anything else? I was pushed into therapy when I was 12 — which was definitely an exception at the time (1987). As the years have passed therapy has become much much more acceptable. It wouldn’t shock me to learn my own perception is shaped by my experiences; hard to put aside a PoV once acquired.
> Well, in my circles its an assumption you’re in therapy. Perhaps this says way more about the circles I’m in that anything else? This sounds like an old Woody Allen movie. I don’t want to offend you but it is fascinating. What kind of social circles is it? In mine, therapy is in general something you do when it’s obvious it’s too late and you are falling in the well of depression and that you try to hide as much as…
My professional circle would be my coworkers at a well-known HFT, and my extended network that is very similar. Everyone is well compensated and many reach out for professional help to deal with the stress. Many also seem to vastly prefer a paid therapist to their spouse, for instance. I’m not married but I can understand not wanting to burden your loved ones!
My personal circle is, well, a lot of technical people, engineers of various stripes, and what I guess I’d call a sort of “standard cast of characters” there? Not sure how best to put this into words?
Honestly it sounds like we’re handling it better than your after-the-fact help! Perhaps you all need to simply start at the first warning sign not the first episode that becomes public?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It begs the question of who decides what “reality” is though. A lot of people have an unrealistically negative view of themselves and their abilities—often based on spending time around pessimistic or small-minded humans. In that case, if an AI increases someone’s confidence in themselves, you could say it’s giving them a stronger sense of reality by helping them to question distorted and self-limiting beliefs.
Reality as in the real world, it is what it is, no one decides.
If someone thinks they can, say, create a billion dollar startup, whether they can really do it or not is a subjective determination. The AI might tell the person they can do it. You might tell them they can't, that the AI is sycophantic, and that they should stop talking to it because they're losing touch with reality.
But is the AI a sycophant, or are you an irrational pessimist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We can argue over whether or not it's "real" empathy There's nothing to argue about, it's unambiguously not real empathy. Empathy from a human exists in a much broader context of past and future interactions. One reason human empathy is nice is because it is often followed up with actions. Friends who care about you will help you out in material ways when you need it. Even strangers will. Someone who sees a person s…
>There's nothing to argue about, it's unambiguously not real empathy I think if a person can't tell the difference between empathy from a human vs empathy from a chatbot, it's a difference without a distinction If it activates the same neural pathways, and has the same results, then I think the mind doesn't care >One reason human empathy is nice is because it is often followed up with actions. Friends who care about…
I'd like to see more of the Monte Python approach ... 'I came here looking for an arguement'. Better the machine should say 'that's ridiculous because x,y,z' and send me away to think that over, and prepare counters than 'oh sure, that's a point of controversy innit? But yes, you're alright'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love the fact that you use its own description to explain what it is, as if it was the expert on itself. I personally cannot see how its own output can be seen as accurate at this level of meta-discussion.
A sign of times to come if you ask me, once it predominantly consumes its own output we're fucked.
Also, consuming its own output (and your input) is how it works, because it's an autoregressive model.
lol.. really? I hate the technology so much I reflexively give a thumbs down to every single answer it gives in every single place where I have the option.