181–190 of 585 posts
I think there are a good number of false positives. I asked ChatGPT something about Git commits, and it told me “I was going through a lot” and needed to get some support.
i seen similar reports on social media, all of them had in common was presence of some keywords.
We've refined the human experience to extinction. In pursuit of that extra 0.1% of growth and extra 0.15 EPS, we've optimised and reoptimised until there isn't really space for being human. We're losing the ability to interact with each other socially, to flirt, now we're making life so stressful people literally want to kill themselves. All in a world (bubble) or abundance, where so much food is made, we literally d…
Ashley Montagu, On Being Human
It’s from the 1950s, I believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The romantic fallback plan of being a farmer or shepherd. I wonder, do farmers and shepherds also romantize about becoming programmers or accountants when they feel down?
They do. I’ve been teaching cross-career programming courses in the past, where most of my students had day jobs, some, involving hard physical work. They’d gladly swap all that for the opportunity to feed their families by writing code. Just comes to show how the grass is always greener when you look on the other side. That said, I also plan to retire up in the mountains soon, rather than keep feeding the machine.
If you have demons they will be there on the farm as well. How you see life is much more important to happiness than which job you have.
Many farmers struggle with alcoholism, beat their wives and hate their life. And many farmers are happy and at peace. Same with the programmers.
We've refined the human experience to extinction. In pursuit of that extra 0.1% of growth and extra 0.15 EPS, we've optimised and reoptimised until there isn't really space for being human. We're losing the ability to interact with each other socially, to flirt, now we're making life so stressful people literally want to kill themselves. All in a world (bubble) or abundance, where so much food is made, we literally d…
This is not suprising at all. Having gone through therapy a few years back, I would have had a chat with LLMs if I was in a poor mental health situation. There is no other system that is available at scale, 24x7 on my phone. A chat like this is not a solution though, it is an indicator that our societies have issues is large parts of our population that we are unable to deal with. We are not helping enough people. To…
If you look at the number of weekly open ai users, this is just the law of big numbers at play.
Surprised it's so low. There are 800 million users and the typical developed country has around 5±3% of the population[1] reporting at least one notable instance of suicidal feelings per year. . [1] Anybody concerned by such figures (as one justifiably should be without further context) should note that suicidality in the population is typically the result of their best approximation of the rational mind attempting t…
There is another factor to consider. The stakes of asking an AI about a taboo topic are generally considered to be very low. The number of people who have asked ChatGPT something like "how to make a nuclear bomb" should not be an indication of the number of people seriously considering doing that.
(1) they probably shouldn't even have that data
(2) they shouldn't have it lying around in a way that it an be attributed to particular individuals
(3) imagine that it leaks to the wrong party, it would make the hack of that Finnish institution look like child's play
(4) if people try to engage it in such conversations the bot should immediately back out because it isn't qualified to have these conversations
(5) I'm surprised it is that little; they claim such high numbers for their users that this seems low.
In the late 90's when ICQ was pretty big we experimented with a bot that you could connect to that was fed in the background by a human. It didn't take a day before someone started talking about suicide to it and we shut down the project realizing that we were in no way qualified to handle human interaction at that level. It definitely wasn't as slick or useful as ChatGPT but it did well enough and responded naturally (more naturally than ChatGPT) because there was a person behind it that could drive 100's of parallel conversations.
If you give people something that seems to be a listening ear they will unburden themselves on that ear regardless of the implementation details of the ear.
This is not suprising at all. Having gone through therapy a few years back, I would have had a chat with LLMs if I was in a poor mental health situation. There is no other system that is available at scale, 24x7 on my phone. A chat like this is not a solution though, it is an indicator that our societies have issues is large parts of our population that we are unable to deal with. We are not helping enough people. To…
I choose to believe that too. I think more people are interested than we’d initially believe. Money restrains many of our true wants. Sidebar — I do sympathize with the problem being thrust upon them, but it is now theirs to either solve or refuse. A chat like this is all you’ve said and dangerous, because they play a middle ground: Presenting a machine can evaluate your personal situation and reason about it, when i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to withdraw from humanity, you only need to withdraw from Big Tech platforms. I'm continually amazed at the difference between the actual human race and the version of the human race that's presented to me online. The first one is basically great, everywhere I go, when I interact with them they're some mix of pleasant, friendly, hapless, busy, helpful, annoyed, basically just the whole range of things…
All of this only goes to show how far we've come on our journey to profit optimization. We could optimize away those pesky humans completely if it weren't for the annoying fact that they are the source of all those profits.
Some estimates for 2025: around 20-30% of all ad clicks were bots. Around $200B in ad spend annually lost to click fraud.
So this is where it gets really interesting right, the platforms are filled with bots, maybe a quarter? of the monetizable action occurring on them IS NOT HUMAN but lots of it gets paid for anyway.
It's turtles all the way down. One little hunk of software, serving up bits to another little hunk of software, constitutes perhaps a quarter of what they call "social" media.
We humans aren't the minority player in all this yet, the bots are still only 25%, but how much do you want to bet that those proportions will flip in our lifetimes?
The future of that whole big swathe of the Internet is probably that it will be 75% some weird shell game between algorithms, and 25% people who have completely lost their minds by participating in it and believing it's real.
I have no idea what this all means for the fate of economics and society but I do know that in my day to day life I'm a lot happier if I just steer clear of these weird little paperclip maximizing robots. To reference the original article, getting too involved with them literally makes you go crazy and think more often about suicide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> OpenAI is trying to do something about it. Ha good one
They are collecting training data for ads & erotica.