61–70 of 85 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With LLMs there is no social tax, I can be as blunt as I like. But there are other taxes to pay with LLMs; they don't learn, they BS relentlessly, there is less fun and camaraderie. My experience is the opposite. They bullshit a lot, derail the conversation/coding session, get defensive, and gaslight. It is not “social tax”, but they mirror sometimes the worst human behaviour.
They only respond to the inputs. Try adding some communication preferences to your system prompt.
>> Is it worth the social brainwork? IDK, for some tasks maybe - there are things a single person can do now that would have been impossible a year ago. But for all tasks? And wouldn’t that social brainwork do more good if it was directed at the real people you are working with? It's the opposite. Many people find it exhausting to interact with humans, and do so only because they are required to. Humans often don't u…
Fooling yourself into thinking the LLMs are "understanding" what you are saying or asking is a trap. The output you get may be useful, but it is not due to any sort of understanding. The elements of human work you mentioned are why it can be both rewarding and painful to interact with humans, but at the end of the day it is important to keep trying to do that work/keep trying to interact with each other. I don't know…
All I do is invoke “pictures” of semantic blobs in my mind, and my unconscious parts pull up more “pictures” in connection to that. Which I verbalize in turn, apply logic checks, and thus get this feeling that I’m meaningfully thinking about something, a sensation of comprehension. I could be even blatantly wrong about something, misunderstanding doesn’t feel any different in the moment.
And reasoning models (try to) capture that. The underlying processes are certainly different, it’s a Chinese Room alright - but if my own understanding is an illusion, the fact that machine model of it isn’t how I do it myself (but only a statistical approximation) doesn’t seem to matter - at least not for inputs and outputs between two black boxes (me or model).
I just don’t believe in p-zombies any more than I believe in Santa, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean those three things are what let you solve it, or that they're what kept you from solving it more often?
Philosophical indifferentism is part of it for sure. lol =3
> When you use an LLM, you don’t get the tool magic: (almost) nobody will claim that Claude or Cursor feel like an extension of their body - they are not consistent or fast enough to trick the brain like a keyboard or a car can. These all seem the same to me? None of them are an "extension of my body"; they're tools I use. > With LLMs, you mostly just get more of the same: more code, more tests, more excuses. You get…
My exhaustion comes from how long winded LLMs are. I ask simple questions and get an essay with bullet points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that answer the question or relate to variable reward and addiction mechanisms? This just seems another unrelated negative sentiment argument towards LLMs?
Not really, people are simply fooled by pernicious sycophantic idealism, and their own cognitive biases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_Turk LLM are great for context search, but were never real "AI" in any sense except in media/PR sensationalism. Scientific hubris and unethical use of LLM is interesting as exposes the primitive impulsive nature of many. Best of luck =3
Even being able to see the original prompt, the response just seemed kind of empty (blocking out the advertisingesque magnificent language leaves little substance behind), but somehow they were convinced that it was a coherent answer to their prompt and even peeved with me for not sharing their astonishment at how well it addressed their concerns.
It's a kind of symbiosis between the LLM and the prompter, where the prompter's own cognitive biases fill in what the LLM can not. Since I don't share their same biases, the response is nearly meaningless.
Very uncomfortable experience having to pretend to agree with how profound it is to not make their prompter upset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, indifferentism must recognize both distinctive positions with similar regard. =3
I see, that totally makes sense. You got stuck there and there's just no way out.