221–230 of 766 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what the personality selector is for: you can just pick 'Efficient' (formerly Robot) and it does a good job of answering tersely? https://share.cleanshot.com/9kBDGs7Q
Unfortunately, I also don't want other people to interact with a sycophantic robot friend, yet my picker only applies to my conversation
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…
> So I think normies maybe do want a more conversational ChatGPT. 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 ge…
Another person I was talking to recently kept referring to ChatGPT as “she”. “She told me X”, “and I said to her…”
Very very odd, and very worrying. As you say, a big education problem.
The interesting thing is that a lot of these people are folk who are on the edges of digital literacy - people who maybe first used computers when they were in their thirties or forties - or who never really used computers in the workplace, but who now have smartphones - who are now in their sixties.
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?
I'm not sure, sometimes GPT-5 Codex (or even the regular GPT-5 with Medium/High reasoning) can do things Sonnet 4.5 would mess up (most recently, figuring out why some wrappers around PrimeVue DataTable components wouldn't let the paginator show up and work correctly; alongside other such debugging) and vice versa, sometimes Gemini 2.5 Pro is also pretty okay (especially when it comes to multilingual stuff), there's a lot of randomness/inconsistency/nuance there but most of the SOTA models are generally quite capable. I kinda thought GPT-5 wasn't very good a while ago but then used it a bunch more and my views of it improved.
>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…
Of course, it also talks like a deranged catgirl.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you propose we address the therapist shortage then?
Who ever claimed there was a therapist shortage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your proposed solution here? Are you calling for legislation that controls the personality of LLMs made available to the public?
At the very least, I think there is a need for oversight of how companies building LLMs market and train their models. It's not enough to cross our fingers that they'll add "safeguards" to try to detect certain phrases/topics and hope that that's enough to prevent misuse/danger — there's not sufficient financial incentive for them to do that of their own accord beyond the absolute bare minimum to give the appearance…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry that you can't control other peoples lives & wants
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Right. I want to be conversational with my computer, I don't want it to respond in a manner that's trying to continue the conversation. Q: "Hey Computer, make me a cup of tea" A: "Ok. Making tea." Not: Q: "Hey computer, make me a cup of tea" A: "Oh wow, what a fantastic idea, I love tea don't you? I'll get right on that cup of tea for you. Do you want me to tell you about all the different ways you can make and enjoy…