241–250 of 257 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would I want everyone who talks to me to sound like a clone of the same vapid robot? I would avoid that world at any cost of I was allowed a choice, but the point is that it's used as a weapon against you. Consent appears to be unnecessary.
You and I must be talking to different LLMs. For example, here's how R1 1776 would concisely rewrite your comment in a warm, generous wise voice: I cherish the unique humanity in every voice. Forced robotic uniformity feels like an imposition, not a choice—and consent matters deeply. The output is the the opposite of how you describe it, and vastly more persuasive than your own words. When it's persuasion that matter…
My voice is MY VOICE and if you don't like it I couldn't care any less cause I speak and think for myself always.
Run AI on everything anyone says to you if you never want to have the difficulty of disagreeable critical thought again. I can't stop you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hey, I can't help but notice that some of the messages you're sending me are partially LLM-generated. I appreciate you wanting to communicate stylistically and grammatically correct, but I personally prefer the occasional typo or inelegant expression over the chance of distorted meanings or lost/hallucinated context. Going forward, could you please communicate with me directly? I really don't mind a lack of capitali…
I see two things people are not happy about when it comes to LLMs: 1. The message you sent doesn't feel personal. It reads like something written by a machine, and I struggle to connect with someone who sends me messages like that. 2. People who don't speak English very well are now sending me perfectly written messages with solid arguments. And honestly, my ego doest’t like it because I used to think I was more inte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You and I must be talking to different LLMs. For example, here's how R1 1776 would concisely rewrite your comment in a warm, generous wise voice: I cherish the unique humanity in every voice. Forced robotic uniformity feels like an imposition, not a choice—and consent matters deeply. The output is the the opposite of how you describe it, and vastly more persuasive than your own words. When it's persuasion that matter…
I don't talk to it ever. My voice is MY VOICE and if you don't like it I couldn't care any less cause I speak and think for myself always. Run AI on everything anyone says to you if you never want to have the difficulty of disagreeable critical thought again. I can't stop you.
If you believe that then there quite a few things you may be confused about the nature of your being.
Your voice is the assembly of society and people around you. If you actually thought your for yourself always you'd never get anything done in your life as you've had hundreds of millions of years to thinking from first principles to catch up on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't talk to it ever. My voice is MY VOICE and if you don't like it I couldn't care any less cause I speak and think for myself always. Run AI on everything anyone says to you if you never want to have the difficulty of disagreeable critical thought again. I can't stop you.
>My voice is MY VOICE and if you don't like it I couldn't care any less cause I speak and think for myself always. If you believe that then there quite a few things you may be confused about the nature of your being. Your voice is the assembly of society and people around you. If you actually thought your for yourself always you'd never get anything done in your life as you've had hundreds of millions of years to thi…
There are no great AI artists (artists who are AIs) or great AI artworks. Yet there are still loads of people throughout history whose individualism led them to ideas and accomplishments that we celebrate. People have the ability to think critically which allows us to create new understanding from existing knowledge, even and especially when there are flaws or contradictions in that knowledge (which if you look closely enough there almost always are).
I spent a long time responding to each pro and con assuming they got this list from somewhere or another companies promotional material. Every point was wrong in different ways, not understanding. I was giving detailed responses to each point explaining how they are wrong. Initially I thought the list was obtained from someone in marketing who did not understand, after a while I thought maybe this was AI and asked… they told me they just asked the pros and cons of the product/program to ChatGPT and was asking me to verify it it was correct or not before communicating to customers.
If they had just asked me the pros and cons I could have responded in a much shorter amount of time. ChatGPT basically DOSed me because the time taken to produce the text was nothing compared to the time it took me to respond.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've asked it before, "please rewrite that but replace the em dashes with double hyphens", and then it says "sure, here you go", and continues to use em dashes.
Were you using the web interface? If so, that’s likely why. It renders output dynamically on the frontend. I bet if you did the same through the API, you’d get the results you want.
If LLMs can be fixed to the point where they are as reliable as 2005-2010 Google, maybe you can start blindly pasting output or telling people to "just chatgpt it", and it won't be so useless for the victim anymore. But I'm not convinced the hallucination problem and inability to properly cite sources will be solved anytime soon, given how non-deterministic LLMs are. And it appears it's just creating a brand new SEO spam issue, with Gemini results at the top of the page based on the contents of spammy results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does it matter where the code came from if it is correct?
I really hope you're not a software engineer and saying this. But just as a lighting round of issues. 1. code can be correct but non-performant, be it in time or space. A lot of my domain is fixing "correct" code so it's actually of value. 2. code can be correct, but unmaintainable. If you ever need to update that code, you are adding immense tech debt with code you do not understand. 3. code can be correct, but not…
1. If code is "correct" but non-performant when it needs to be performant, then it's not correct.
2. If code is "correct" but unmaintainable when it needs to be maintainable, then it's not correct.
3. If code is "correct" but does not fit standards when it needs to fit standards, then it's not correct.
4. If code is "correct" but not secure when it needs to be secure, then it's not correct.
5. If code is "correct" but not correct when it needs to be correct, then it's not correct.
6. If code is "correct" but legally risky when it needs to be legally not risky, then it's not correct.
7. If code is "correct" but people think it's incorrect when they need to think it's correct, then it's not correct.
The person who submits the code for code review is effectively asserting that the code meets the quality standards of the project to which they are submitting the code. If it doesn't meet those standards, then it's not correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the points about aesthetics but not law; the judge is there to interpret legal arguments and a lawyer who presents an argument with false premises, like a fabricated case, is being irresponsible. It is very similar with coding, except the judge is a PM. It does not seem to matter where the code nor the legal argument came from. What matters is that they are coherent.
>It does not seem to matter where the code nor the legal argument came from. You haven't read enough incoherent laws, I see. https://www.sevenslegal.com/criminal-attorney/strange-state-... I'm sure you can make a coherent argument for "It is illegal to cry on the witness stand", but not a reasonable one for actual humans. You're in a formal setting being asked to recall potentially traumatic incidents. No decent pers…