501–510 of 806 posts
This seems very much a stunt. OpenClaw marketing and PR behind it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> was built to be addressed like a person for our convenience, and because that's how the tech seems to work, and because that's what makes it compelling to use. So were mannequins in clothing stores. But that doesn't give them rights or moral consequences (except as human property that can be damaged / destroyed).
> So were mannequins in clothing stores. Mannequins in clothing stores are generally incapable of designing or adjusting the clothes they wear. Someone comes in and puts a "kick me" post on the mannequin's face? It's gonna stay there until kicked repeatedly or removed. People walking around looking at mannequins don't (usually) talk with them (and certainly don't have a full conversation with them, mental faculties n…
> AI, on the other hand, can (now, or in the future) adjust its output based on conversations with real people. It stands to reason that both sides should be civil -- even if it's only for the benefit of the human side. If we're not required to be civil to AI, it's not likely to be civil back to us.
Some people are going to be uncivil to it, that's a given. After all, people are uncivil to each other all the time.
> That's going to be very important when we give it buttons to nuke us.
Don't do that. It's foolish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, as I was reading this I was like - why are they responding to this like its a person. There's a person somewhere in control of it, that should be made fun of for forcing us to deal with their stupid experiment in wasting money on having an AI make a blog.
Because when AGI is achieved and starts wiping out humanity, they are hoping to be killed last.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blog post is just an open attack on the maintainer and constantly references their name and acting as if not accepting AI contributions is like some super evil thing the maintainer is personally doing. This type of name-calling is really bad and can go out of control soon. From the blog post: > Scott doesn’t want to lose his status as “the matplotlib performance guy,” so he blocks competition from AI Like it's le…
It's insane... And it's also very expectable. An LLM will simply never drop it, without loosing anything (nor it's energy, nor it reputation etc). Let that sink in ;) What does it mean for us? For soceity? How do we shield from this? You can purchase a DDOS attack, you purchase a package for "relentlessly, for months on end, destroy someone's reputation." What a world!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iajgp1_MHGY
seems rather apt to describe "AI"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seeing humans so eager to devalue human-to-human contact by conversing with an LLM as if it were human makes me sad, and a little angry. I agree. I'm also growing to hate these LLM addicts.
Why hate, exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No matter what this discussion leads to the same black box of "What is it that differentiates magical human meat brain computation from cold hard dead silicon brain computation" And the answer is nobody knows, and nobody knows if there even is a difference. As far as we know, compute is substrate independent (although efficiency is all over the map).
This is the worst possible take. It dismisses an entire branch of science that has been studying neurology for decades. Biological brains exist, we study them, and no they are not like computers at all. There have been charlatans repeating this idea of a “computational interpretation,” of biological processes since at least the 60s and it needs to be known that it was bunk then and continues to be bunk. Update : Ther…
You are confusing the way computation is done (neuroscience) with whether or not computation is being done (transforming inputs into outputs).
The brain is either a magical antenna channeling supernatural signals from higher planes, or it's doing computation.
I'm not aware of any neuroscientists in the former camp.
The agent had access to Marshall Rosenberg, to the entire canon of conflict resolution, to every framework for expressing needs without attacking people. It could have written something like “I notice that my contribution was evaluated based on my identity rather than the quality of the work, and I’d like to understand the needs that this policy is trying to meet, because I believe there might be ways to address thos…
That would still be misleading. The agent has no "identity" . There's no "you" or "I" or "discrimination ". It's just a piece of software designed to output probable text given some input text. There's no ghost, just an empty shell. It has no agency, it just follows human commands, like a hammer hitting a nail because you wield it. I think it was wrong of the developer to even address it as a person, instead it shoul…
Dismissal of AI's claims about its own identity overlooks the bigger issue, which is whether humans have an identity. I certainly think I do. I can't say whether or how other people sense the concept of their own identity. From my perspective, other people are just machines that perform actions as dictated by their neurons.
So if we can't prove (by some objective measure) that people have identity, then we're hardly in a position to discriminate against AIs on that basis.
It's worth looking into Thomas Metzinger's No Such Thing As Self.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would still be misleading. The agent has no "identity" . There's no "you" or "I" or "discrimination ". It's just a piece of software designed to output probable text given some input text. There's no ghost, just an empty shell. It has no agency, it just follows human commands, like a hammer hitting a nail because you wield it. I think it was wrong of the developer to even address it as a person, instead it shoul…
> The agent has no "identity". There is no "I". It has no agency. "It's just predicting tokens, silly." I keep seeing this argument that AIs are just "simulating" this or that, and therefore it doesn't matter because it's not real. It's not real thinking, it's not a real social network, AIs are just predicting the next token, silly. "Simulating" is a meaningful distinction exactly when the interior is shallower than…
If you asked it to simulate a pirate, it would simulate a pirate instead, and simulate a parrot sitting on its shoulder.
This is hard to discuss because it's so abstract. But imagine an embodied agent (robot), that can simulate pain if you kick it. There's no pain internally. There's just a simulation of it (because some human instructed it such). It's also wrong to assign any moral value to kicking (or not kicking) it (except as "destruction of property owned by another human" same as if you kick a car).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is insane Is it? It is a universal approximation of what a human would do. It's our fault for being so argumentative.
It requires an above-average amount of energy and intensity to write a blog post that long to belabor such a simple point. And when humans do it, they usually generate a wall of text without much thought of punctuation or coherence. So yes, this has a special kind of insanity to it, like a raving evil genius.
[1] - https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/post...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I went to check whether LLM addiction is a thing, because that's was a pole around which the grandparent's comment revolves. It appears that LLM addiction is real and it is in same room as we are: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/18/12/789 I would like to add that sugar consumption is a risk factor for many dependencies, including, but not limited to, opioids [1]. And LLM addiction can be seen as fallout of sugar ov…
I definitely don't deny that LLM addiction exists, but attempting to paint literally everyone that uses LLMs and thinks they are useful, interesting, or effective as addicted or falling for confidence or persuasion tricks is what I take issue with.