51–59 of 59 posts
This feels so much like 90s Wikipedia criticism. There are lousy and lazy ways to use LLMs. There are also enlightening and powerful ways. Find someone curious who will explore them. Don't date people who habitually fight anything new.
> This feels so much like 90s Wikipedia criticism. Wikipedia didn't start until 2001. There was no 90s Wikipedia criticism. It didn't exist.
This feels so much like 90s Wikipedia criticism. There are lousy and lazy ways to use LLMs. There are also enlightening and powerful ways. Find someone curious who will explore them. Don't date people who habitually fight anything new.
"Habitually fighting anything new" is nonpolitical conservatism. It's not my stance but it's a pretty valid one, long recognized. There is social value in having people and groups who reject all changes regardless of their apparent merit or sophistication. You can't trick or swindle them, they can't be fooled or persuaded. It provides a counter to the incentives pushing us to change too fast, or without understanding…
Sure. But date the intellectually curious. They are way more fun.
When dating someone you are testing their decision making and preferences. It feels like outsourcing personality and feels insincere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There seems to be this assumption that if you ask AI for input, somehow you've turned into a slave that isn't capable of critiquing its response and integrating it into a larger decision-making process. Why do people make that assumption? That would be the dumbest possible way to use AI.
One of the major stories from the rise of AI tooling was when people cooked a recipe that included glue. I don’t think it’s unfair to assume some non-trivial percentage of people use these tools in a very dumb way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Honestly, my favorite places aren't the place I'd want to take a first date. They're casual and cheap and wouldn't convey that I was trying very hard.
Unless you're talking about fast food, what's the problem?
Tip #2: Don't pretend your lifestyle is going to fancy places, she'll come to expect that. Just be you. You like the local Coney Island? Go for it. I mean... unless your norm is Taco Bell in which case yeah, take it up a notch.
> ‘OK, so ChatGPT helps you write your grocery list. Does your individual convenience outweigh the societal harm it can cause?’
look at this garbage reasoning. "oh no a shopping list, IT IS THE END OF THE WORLD"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the major stories from the rise of AI tooling was when people cooked a recipe that included glue. I don’t think it’s unfair to assume some non-trivial percentage of people use these tools in a very dumb way.
That's fair. But refusing to date somebody because you assume they're using it in the dumbest possible way seems a bridge too far.
I hope we get some interesting psychological studies out of this sort of story in the coming years. Maybe we can learn a thing or two about ourselves.
I can understand what she's saying. Using ChatGPT produces outcomes that are so mid and basic. Just average. I'd want to date someone more interesting than that.
"A good friend recently told me that she spent a night with a man, and in the morning suggested they get breakfast together. He took out his phone, opened ChatGPT, and asked for restaurant suggestions. Why get close to someone who outsources decisions, including the fun ones like picking where to eat?" Same logic applies to using Google, I guess? Or any mapping app? How about Yelp?