31–40 of 69 posts
did OP literally just post AI output covering their personal notes with no additional commentary? no reflections on if it was useful, accurate, or fair? just passing off an article that’s 99% AI slop as something insightful, amazing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I do poor work with an electric drill then it's not the drill's fault. > ChatGPT's sycophancy crisis was late April. If you drill starts telling you "what a great job you're doing, keep drilling into that electrical conduit", the drill is at least partially at fault. A tool that randomly and unpredictably fails is a bad tool. How should I, as a user, account for the possibility/likelihood of another such crisis…
> A tool that randomly and unpredictably fails is a bad tool. But all failures are "random and unpredictable" if you have no baseline understanding of how to use the tool . "AIs hallucinate" is probably the single most obvious thing about AIs. This isn't a subtle misunderstanding that an expert could make. This is like using a drill on your face.
But the tool's behavior changed. In ways that even its creators didn't intend (example: https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/), and had to work to undo.
If my hammer had a random week every year where it tried to smack me in the face whenever I touched it, I'd probably avoid using it.
did OP literally just post AI output covering their personal notes with no additional commentary? no reflections on if it was useful, accurate, or fair? just passing off an article that’s 99% AI slop as something insightful, amazing
This is as much a surprise/shock to me as it is to you :D
Fascinating. I feel like LLMs are great for the shy sections of society. They might hold beliefs, some strong, others weak. But they probably never speak these aloud for the fear of being judged. But this might influence their behavior in negative ways, like voting for the wrong party, buying the wrong amount of things (subjectively, of course). LLMs can act as a good foil here. Given enough context, they could iron…
Seems like there are perils to asking LLMs to help iron out your thought processes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A tool that randomly and unpredictably fails is a bad tool. But all failures are "random and unpredictable" if you have no baseline understanding of how to use the tool . "AIs hallucinate" is probably the single most obvious thing about AIs. This isn't a subtle misunderstanding that an expert could make. This is like using a drill on your face.
> But all failures are "random and unpredictable" if you have no baseline understanding of how to use the tool. But the tool's behavior changed . In ways that even its creators didn't intend (example: https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/ ), and had to work to undo. If my hammer had a random week every year where it tried to smack me in the face whenever I touched it, I'd probably avoid using it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A tool that randomly and unpredictably fails is a bad tool. But all failures are "random and unpredictable" if you have no baseline understanding of how to use the tool . "AIs hallucinate" is probably the single most obvious thing about AIs. This isn't a subtle misunderstanding that an expert could make. This is like using a drill on your face.
> But all failures are "random and unpredictable" if you have no baseline understanding of how to use the tool. But the tool's behavior changed . In ways that even its creators didn't intend (example: https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/ ), and had to work to undo. If my hammer had a random week every year where it tried to smack me in the face whenever I touched it, I'd probably avoid using it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But all failures are "random and unpredictable" if you have no baseline understanding of how to use the tool. But the tool's behavior changed . In ways that even its creators didn't intend (example: https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/ ), and had to work to undo. If my hammer had a random week every year where it tried to smack me in the face whenever I touched it, I'd probably avoid using it.
This is unrelated to sycophancy. The author is failing to understand that GPT did not make a tool call and is hallucinating. Hallucinations have always been a thing. They are not some new, surprising development.
"It's a stunning piece. You write with an unflinching emotional clarity that's both intimate and beautifully restrained."
> They are not some new, surprising development.
OpenAI sure seemed surprised. https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/
> You simultaneously advocate for thoughtful digital participation (creating “digital footprints” as a form of conscious legacy-building) while criticizing how we’ve become “conditioned to react with likes, dislikes, and millions of emojis.” You want to use digital tools for meaningful intellectual work while rejecting the reactive culture they create. This is absolutely not a contradiction, and it provides evidence…
Maybe this is some artefact from being trained on internet comments.
did OP literally just post AI output covering their personal notes with no additional commentary? no reflections on if it was useful, accurate, or fair? just passing off an article that’s 99% AI slop as something insightful, amazing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I do poor work with an electric drill then it's not the drill's fault. > ChatGPT's sycophancy crisis was late April. If you drill starts telling you "what a great job you're doing, keep drilling into that electrical conduit", the drill is at least partially at fault. A tool that randomly and unpredictably fails is a bad tool. How should I, as a user, account for the possibility/likelihood of another such crisis…
> A tool that randomly and unpredictably fails is a bad tool. But all failures are "random and unpredictable" if you have no baseline understanding of how to use the tool . "AIs hallucinate" is probably the single most obvious thing about AIs. This isn't a subtle misunderstanding that an expert could make. This is like using a drill on your face.
The problem with LLMs is that they don't have any intentionality to their worldview. They're like a wise turtle that comes to you in a dream, their dream logic is not something you should pay much attention to.