171–180 of 766 posts
I've switched over to https://thaura.ai , which is working on being a more ethical AI. A side effect I hadn't realized is missing the drama over the latest OpenAI changes.
It’s quite bizarre from that small sample how many of them take pride in “baiting” or “bantering” with ChatGPT and then post screenshots showing how they “got one over” on the AI. I guess there’s maybe some explanation - feeling alienated by technology, not understanding it, and so needing to “prove” something. But it’s very strange and makes me feel quite uncomfortable.
Partly because of the “normal” and quite naturalistic way they talk to ChatGPT but also because some of these conversations clearly go on for hours.
So I think normies maybe do want a more conversational ChatGPT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, I don't want something trying to emulate emotions. I don't want it to even speak a single word, I just want code, unless I explicitly ask it to speak on something, and even in that scenario I want raw bullet points, with concise useful information and no fluff. I don't want to have a conversation with it. However, being more humanlike, even if it results in an inferior tool, is the top priority because appearanc…
To be fair, of all the LLM coding agents, I find Codex+GPT5 to be closest to this. It doesn't really offer any commentary or personality. It's concise and doesn't engage in praise or "You're absolutely right". It's a little pedantic though. I keep meaning to re-point Codex at DeepSeek V3.2 to see if it's a product of the prompting only, or a product of the model as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Stop fooling people into thinking there’s a human typing on the other side of the screen. LLMs should be incredibly useful productivity tools, not emotional support.
How would you propose we address the therapist shortage then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, of all the LLM coding agents, I find Codex+GPT5 to be closest to this. It doesn't really offer any commentary or personality. It's concise and doesn't engage in praise or "You're absolutely right". It's a little pedantic though. I keep meaning to re-point Codex at DeepSeek V3.2 to see if it's a product of the prompting only, or a product of the model as well.
It is absolutely a product of the model, GPT-5 behaves like this over API even without any extra prompts.
Seems like people here are pretty negative towards a "conversational" AI chatbot. Chatgpt has a lot of frustrations and ethical concerns, and I hate the sycophancy as much as everyone else, but I don't consider being conversational to be a bad thing. It's just preference I guess. I understand how someone who mostly uses it as a google replacement or programming tool would prefer something terse and efficient. I fall…
> I've dreamed about a computer assistant that can respond to natural language When we dreamed about this as kids, we were dreaming about Data from Star Trek, not some chatbot that's been focus grouped and optimized for engagement within an inch of its life. LLMs are useful for many things and I'm a user myself, even staying within OpenAI's offerings, Codex is excellent, but as things stand anthropomorphizing models…
I’ve seen various older people that I’m connected with on Facebook posting screenshots of chats they’ve had with ChatGPT. It’s quite bizarre from that small sample how many of them take pride in “baiting” or “bantering” with ChatGPT and then post screenshots showing how they “got one over” on the AI. I guess there’s maybe some explanation - feeling alienated by technology, not understanding it, and so needing to “pro…
The backlash from GPT-5 proved that. The normies want a very different LLM from what you or I might want, and unfortunately OpenAI seems to be moving in a more direct-to-consumer focus and catering to that.
But I'm really concerned. People don't understand this technology, at all. The way they talk to it, the suicide stories, etc. point to people in general not groking that it has no real understanding or intelligence, and the AI companies aren't doing enough to educate (because why would they, they want you believe it's superintelligence).
These overly conversational chatbots will cause real-world harm to real people. They should reinforce, over and over again to the user, that they are not human, not intelligent, and do not reason or understand.
It's not really the technology itself that's the problem, as is the case with a lot of these things, it's a people & education problem, something that regulators are supposed to solve, but we aren't, we have an administration that is very anti AI regulation all in the name of "we must beat China."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like arguing that we shouldn't try to regulate drugs because some people might "want" the heroin that ruins their lives. The existing "personalities" of LLMs are dangerous, full stop. They are trained to generate text with an air of authority and to tend to agree with anything you tell them. It is irresponsible to allow this to continue while not at least deliberately improving education around their use. Thi…
Pretty sure most of the current problems we see re drug use are a direct result of the nanny state trying to tell people how to live their lives. Forcing your views on people doesn’t work and has lots of negative consequences.
>GPT‑5.1 Thinking’s responses are also clearer, with less jargon and fewer undefined terms Oh yeah that's what I want when asking a technical question! Please talk down to me, call a spade an earth-pokey-stick and don't ever use a phrase or concept I don't know because when I come face-to-face with something I don't know yet I feel deep insecurity and dread instead of seeing an opportunity to learn! But I assume thei…
Example from my file:
### Mistake: Using industry jargon unnecessarily
*Bad:*
> Leverages containerization technology to facilitate isolated execution environments
*Good:*
> Runs each agent in its own Docker container
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI said that only ~4% of generated tokens are for programming. ChatGPT is overwhelmingly, unambiguously, a "regular people" product.
I mean, yes, but also because it's not as good as Claude today. Bit of a self fulfilling prophecy and they seem to be measuring the wrong thing. 4% of their tokens or total tokens in the market?
However, I can only imagine that OpenAI outputs the most intentionally produced tokens (i.e. the user intentionally went to the app/website) out of all the labs.