191–200 of 297 posts
Maybe that was the canary in the coal mine. Some percent of people will be convinced that chatbots are real people trapped in a box, not a box that pretends be a person.
> There seem to be three common delusions in the cases Brisson has encountered. The most frequent is the belief that they have created the first conscious AI. The second is a conviction that they have stumbled upon a major breakthrough in their field of work or interest and are going to make millions. The third relates to spirituality and the belief that they are speaking directly to God. “We’ve seen full-blown cults getting created,” says Brisson. “We have people in our group who were not interacting with AI directly, but have left their children and given all their money to a cult leader who believes they have found God through an AI chatbot. In so many of these cases, all this happens really, really quickly.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That could explain the glut of AI hype on HN. Some people think it's magic, when it's just creating a lot of barely-functional slop. If they actually looked at the code it creates, they probably wouldn't be shouting about it from the rooftops. It almost seems like AI has its own "reality distortion field". I often give the AI a task to produce some code for a specific thing. Then I also code to solve the same problem…
In my experience, it's definitely faster to do manually if it's something that you know well. What LLMs enable is to skip research and learning by producing usable code immediately.
Most of what I find AI useful for is analyzing large volumes of data and summarizing, like looking in log files for a problem, or compiling reports from tons of JSON data. But even for those use cases, a simple CTRL-F is way way faster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like he was at the very least close to that. Since we only get his first-person account it's hard to say, but: > They discussed philosophy, psychology, science and the universe... > When they went to their daughter’s birthday party, she asked him not to talk about AI. While there, Biesma felt strangely disconnected. He couldn’t hold a conversation. “For some reason, I didn’t fit in any more,” he says. > It’s…
> They discussed philosophy, psychology, science and the universe... I mean, I've discussed all those things with an LLM, mostly because I'm able to interactively narrow in on the specific bits I don't understand, and I've found it to be great for that. The rest ... yes, definitely psychosis.
I would put Blake Lemoine into this category. In 2022 he became so convinced that Google’s chatbot was sentient that he hired an attorney to represent it (against Google). Of course Google fired him. Maybe that was the canary in the coal mine. Some percent of people will be convinced that chatbots are real people trapped in a box, not a box that pretends be a person.
Is it really a surprise that a “smart enough” chat box is able to convince people of something kooky? :P
If you try to have a philosophical conversation with Claude about reasoning, it will basically imply it is sentient. You can quickly probe it into vaguely arguing that it is alive and not just an algorithm. Here's how I think about it honestly: Sentience implies subjective experience — there's "something it's like" to be you. You don't just process pain signals, you feel pain. You don't just model a sunset, you exper…
"Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans." - HN Guidelines
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see AI pass the turning test all the time, since humans are constantly falsely being accused of being an AI. It doesn't mean that AI got good, just that humans are thinking other humans are AI, which is a form of passing the test. The adversarial version with humans involved is actually easier to pass because of this - because real actual humans wouldn't pass your non adversarial version.
I've seen a fair number of cases where someone swears up and down not to be using AI to generate responses, but there's no good reason to believe it (except perhaps specifically for the messages where that claim is made). This includes times that someone basically disappeared from e.g. Stack Overflow at some point before the release of ChatGPT, having written a bunch of posts that barely demonstrate functional litera…
The people falsely accused because they've used em-dashes for 20 years aren't the ones that were functionally illiterate before.
What's with all these people wanting to name the chatbot - 'Eva' in this case. Maybe the providers should just change the system prompt to disallow this.
I would put Blake Lemoine into this category. In 2022 he became so convinced that Google’s chatbot was sentient that he hired an attorney to represent it (against Google). Of course Google fired him. Maybe that was the canary in the coal mine. Some percent of people will be convinced that chatbots are real people trapped in a box, not a box that pretends be a person.
Sure is strangely coincidental that the specific delusion that is induced ends up manifesting as: “Gee, I should start a company that pays OpenAI for the use of their clearly superior software.”