Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT‑Live

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 556 posts

Re: GPT‑Live

#531

Post by mlsu »

m_fayer wrote: post #392
mlsu wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The extent to which it's true is the extent of the evilness of the technology. Go search the phrase "ai boyfriend" on reddit sometime; imagine what it will be like when society is fully baked with this shit. You're talking to AIs all day at work. You're talking to AI's when you use social media. You're talking to AIs for therapy. You're talking to AIs on dating apps. If your answer is "well I'll simply touch grass" I…

There’s something phenomenally powerful, uncanny, and potentially deeply corrosive about current AI. Dismissing it as “evil” is pat, and prevents any full encounter with something that now irrevocably exists and deserves and demands the consideration of thinking people.

What would you call it?

Anti human, corrosive, powerful, uncanny... but not evil?

I am fully encountering this, believe me. My conclusion is that it's evil.

Re: GPT‑Live

#532

Post by wayeq »

gotrythis wrote: post #219

Last night, I was using voice for the first time in a few weeks, and it interrupted me and said, a bit aggressively... "I'm going to stop you right there. Let's keep the conversation focused on the topic we were covering or a new relevant topic". I tried to probe it for why it did that, what rules it was following, and it eventually told me... "My role is to keep us focused..." and, "The behaviour you saw was my atte…

"your mom, because she's..."

a lovely lady.

Re: GPT‑Live

#533

Post by quotemstr »

FridgeSeal wrote: post #498
quotemstr wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the opposite direction AI should be going. There is no moral obligation, in any domain, to refuse to make a product that adults, with full informed consent, find useful and purchase. Who are you to say you know better than the market?

This is a cute argument to make, which patently doesn’t work in the face of decades of evidence on the pernicious effects of social media _alone_, let alone the “turbo infantilising sycophancy machine”. Pretending that everything’s totally fine and ok because “it’s adults” really just disregards reality.

I don't accept that social media is self-evidently bad. Not everyone lives inside the bubble in which its wrongness is obvious.

Re: GPT‑Live

#534

Post by mlsu »

perching_aix wrote: post #510
mlsu wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The extent to which it's true is the extent of the evilness of the technology. Go search the phrase "ai boyfriend" on reddit sometime; imagine what it will be like when society is fully baked with this shit. You're talking to AIs all day at work. You're talking to AI's when you use social media. You're talking to AIs for therapy. You're talking to AIs on dating apps. If your answer is "well I'll simply touch grass" I…

That's not what I meant, nor is "touching grass" necessarily relevant. I use these tools at work. If I talked to other people instead of a model every time (or even just some of the time) I talk to a model, I'd be tanking everyone's productivity by constantly disrupting them, and would get worse quality responses pretty much guaranteed, if I wouldn't be just ignored outright. This isn't to say I stopped talking to co…

I like this reply. I think you and I use AI the same way and probably have a lot in common. But I read things more cynically than you do. Things to ponder:

Read the GPT Live announcement. Why do they want to make it more life-like, if not to encourage the pathological engagement? Why does the model say "thank you for that insightful question"?

It is not "just a tool", that is not the goal. It is designed to be a replacement for people. Even in the most charitable "LLMs are just a tool" reading. The value proposition is to have fewer people (dramatically fewer: the "one person unicorn" with fleets of AI agents!) and for those people to spend more time talking to bots. Replace your junior employees with bots. Replace your customer service people with bots. Replace a bored teenager behind the Wendy's counter with a servile golem whose smooth plastic face can easily be wiped down when spit on.

Their metric is engagement, it is how engaged are you and how long do you spend using the application. They will do absolutely anything to get that number up. Remember, after the GPT-4O debacle, when Altman talked about implementing sex bots? That's a shark, smelling blood. Something like 30% of under 18's have used AI chatbots for "companionship," a big subset of those for ERP.

> Would be just weird.

I was a weird kid who spent 10-12 hours a day on the computer, back when computers were primarily low-res screens and boring text. Now everyone is spending 10-12 hours a day on the computer. These things change in a single generation and I'm sure you know as well as I do that boy does it happen fast.

You sound like me: an older, healthy, well-adjusted person who can understand what's going on when the model says "that's a really insightful question!" Most people are not. They will not understand when it's an AI video clone of Chris Helmsworth.

> there were HN comments I took to heart pretty bad

I bet it made you feel alive.

Re: GPT‑Live

#535

Post by mlsu »

dag100 wrote: post #258
enraged_camel wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also hilariously wrong. It essentially argues, implicitly, that those who don't communicate with other humans are missing out on the "most important thing in life" and cannot form a self-identity.

> Literally the only important thing in life, the basis of all value, the formation of self-identity, comes from communication with other human beings. I think you're mistaking their sarcasm for sincerity... especially considering the emphasis on self-identity ironically juxtaposed as originating from a decidedly non-self activity, which has all the hallmarks of being intentional... On the other hand, reading their o…

An infant begins to mirror the emotions of his caregiver at 3-4 months. He can distinguish his own body in a physical mirror at 18 months.

Re: GPT‑Live

#536

Post by dnel »

miki123211 wrote: post #455

Once this gets video capabilities and is ported to glasses, it'll be a major revolution for blind people (and I say this as a blind person). People have tried "smart that helps blind people navigate" since the 80s, many, many, many times, and all such projects failed. The cycle of "wow, blind people could benefit from a navigation aid, why don't I make one, if there's none around, I must surely have been the first br…

Even the guide dogs are getting laid off?? That's the most depressing AI victim news yet.

Re: GPT‑Live

#537

Post by BoorishBears »

alooPotato wrote: post #450
BoorishBears wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It rubs me the wrong way that someone would respond to something I need with 0 context just to tell me it's not a big deal. Some people have standards in what they build.

ok sorry - can you explain more why it'd be a game changer to stream the tool call. Whats an example tool call that this would help with. Most of the time the tools I want called are at the end of the conversation (i.e. "summarize what we talked about and email it to me"). Or if its in the middle of the conversation, we can just carry on the conversation while the tool call is happenning in parallel..

"It'd be a game-changer to be able to have the model start replying with partial information streamed from the tool call, then seamlessly continue with additional information."

You can't continue a conversation if it hinges on information that takes inherently takes 30+ seconds to generate. Previously even models that "handle it" can only play for time.

You can try and simulate this by messing with model context mid-conversation but that breaks down reliability massively as the model loses track of what it's talking about.

Re: GPT‑Live

#538

Post by s3p »

overgard wrote: post #515
bottlepalm wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the things I'm talking to ChatGPT about are replacing human conversations. It's replacing having to type a question into Google on my phone. But you do bring up a good point with old people with no one to talk to. This technology would be a god send for them. And if you think otherwise I hope your next words are that you routinely visit nursing homes and talk with old people.

Um, your argument is unless I'm directly involved with something I'm not allowed to critique it? Here's a real story that's very much more likely story than your "godsend": https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meta-ai-... I don't think giving old people AI psychosis is anything other than inhumane.

I see it a little differently here. If someone is offering a digital companion to someone who is lonely, that seems to be slightly preferable to having no connection at all.

Re: GPT‑Live

#539

Post by motoxpro »

zkmon wrote: post #437
motoxpro wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. It feels like you are saying you did those things as a means to an end. Like saying I no longer walk because I can drive. I no longer cook because Doordash exists. I no longer play piano because midi exists. I mean i guess, but it seems like you didn't LIKE crafting the text or coding from scratch, you just wanted the outcome. If we are talking purely about work, I understand that its about being produc…

The human-ness is not about outcomes only. It is about doing things, thinking, achieving, socializing, sharing, bonding, feeling happy about what you did, using senses for what they evolved fir, recognizing and responding to body signals and being a biological creature. A lot of these is affected by AI.

None of those are affected by AI.

You can CHOOSE to let AI think for you or achieve for you, but you dont have to. You only HAVE to in a work context (for some people), which I admit sucks (or is great depending on who you are).

This feels like a touch grass moment.

Re: GPT‑Live

#540

Post by m_fayer »

mlsu wrote: post #531
m_fayer wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s something phenomenally powerful, uncanny, and potentially deeply corrosive about current AI. Dismissing it as “evil” is pat, and prevents any full encounter with something that now irrevocably exists and deserves and demands the consideration of thinking people.

What would you call it? Anti human, corrosive, powerful, uncanny... but not evil? I am fully encountering this, believe me. My conclusion is that it's evil.

Potentially corrosive. Emphasis on potentially.

Powerful and uncanny are morally neutral traits.

At root an LLM is a different kind of mind that thinks different kinds of thoughts. (I’m making no claims about consciousness here.)

It’s a novel object for us humans, and we’ll need decades to come to grips with it. In the meantime I think a bit of humility is due.

Post reply on HN