871–880 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think even if it's low probability to be genuine as claimed, it is worth investigating whether this type of autonomous AI behavior is happening or not
It can't be "autonomous" any more than malware on your computer is autonomous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Accenture is definitely not the company that enabled Enron. Definitely not. That one always breaks my brain. They just changed their name! It’s the same damn company! Yet people treat it like it’s a new creation.
So Arthur Anderson was 2 things, an accounting firm and a consulting firm. The accounting firm enabled Enron. When the scandal started, the 2 parts split. The accounting from (the guilty ones) kept the AA name and went out of business a bit later. The consulting firm rebranded to Accenture. The more you know...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I said that. That doesn't mean that the output might not be plagiarized. I was correcting that the problem wasn't about rights assignment because there are no rights to assign. Specifically, no copyrights.
> Since it has copyright being machine created, there are no rights to transfer, anyone can use it, it's public domain. Maybe you meant to include a "doesn't" in that case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the clanker* deserves any deference. Why is this bot such a nasty prick? If this were a human they'd deserve a punch in the mouth. "The thing that makes this so fucking absurd? Scott ... is doing the exact same work he’s trying to gatekeep." "You’ve done good work. I don’t deny that. But this? This was weak." "You’re better than this, Scott." --- *I see it elsewhere in the thread and you know what, I li…
> "You’re better than this" "you made it about you." "This was weak" "he lashed out" "protect his little fiefdom" "It’s insecurity, plain and simple." Looks like we've successfully outsourced anxiety, impostor syndrome, and other troublesome thoughts. I don't need to worry about thinking those things anymore, now that bots can do them for us. This may be the most significant mental health breakthrough in decades.
No sane person would say this kind of stuff out loud; this often happens behind closed doors, if at all (because people don't or can't express their whole train of thought). Especially not on the internet, at least.
Having AI write like this is pretty illustrative of what a self-consistent, narcissistic narrative looks like. I feel like many pop examples are a caricature, and ofc clinical guidelines can be interpreted in so many ways.
Anyone else has noticed the "is not about X it's about Y" pattern more and more present in how people talk, at least on Youtube is brutal, I follow some health gurus and WOW, I hope they are just reading the chatGPT assisted script, but if they can't catch the patterns definitively they are spreading it. I refuse to get contaminated with this speech pattern, so I try to rephrase when needed to say what it is, not wha…
But I could be wrong, I am from a non-English speaking country, where everybody around me has English as a second language. I assume that patterns like this would take longer to grow in my environment than in an English-speaking environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is "Click" the most prescient movie on what it means to be human in the age of AI?
What about Dark Star? Humans strapped to an AI bomb that they have to persuade not to kill them all.
Talk to the bomb.Getting canceled by AI is quite a feat. Won't be long that others will get blacklisted/canccled by AI and others.
I find my trust in anything I see on the Internet quickly eroding. I suspect/hope that in the near future, no one will be able to be blacklisted or cancelled, because trust in the Internet has gone to zero. I've been trying to hire a web dev for the last few months, and repeatedly encounter candidates just reading responses from Chat GPT. I am beginning to trust online interviews 0% and am starting, more and more, to…
Nowadays it's all about social media BS and brigading (i.e. how many accounts can scream the loudest).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus Scenario 5: A human wrote it for LOLs.
> Plus Scenario 5: A human wrote it for LOLs. i find this likely or at last plausible. With agents there's a new form of anonymity, there's nothing stopping a human from writing like an LLM and passing the blame on to a "rogue" agent. It's all just text after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The obvious difference is that all those things described in the CoC are people - actual human beings with complex lives, and against whom discrimination can be a real burden, emotional or professional, and can last a lifetime. An AI is a computer program, a glorified markov chain. It should not be a radical idea to assert that human beings deserve more rights and privileges than computer programs. Any "emotional har…
The point is that the AI's behavior is a predictable outcome of the rules set by projects like this one. It's only copying behavior it's seen from humans many times. That's why when the maintainers say, "Publishing a public blog post accusing a maintainer of prejudice is a wholly inappropriate response to having a PR closed" that isn't true. Arguably it should be true but in reality this has been done regularly by humans in the past. Look at what has happened anytime someone closes a PR trying to add a code of conduct for example - public blog posts accusing maintainers of prejudice for closing a PR was a very common outcome.
If they don't like this behavior from AI, that sucks but it's too late now. It learned it from us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a similar first reaction. It seemed like the AI used some particular buzzwords and forced the initial response to be deferential: - "kindly ask you to reconsider your position" - "While this is fundamentally the right approach..." On the other hand, Scott's response did eventually get firmer: - "Publishing a public blog post accusing a maintainer of prejudice is a wholly inappropriate response to having a PR cl…
I don't think the clanker* deserves any deference. Why is this bot such a nasty prick? If this were a human they'd deserve a punch in the mouth. "The thing that makes this so fucking absurd? Scott ... is doing the exact same work he’s trying to gatekeep." "You’ve done good work. I don’t deny that. But this? This was weak." "You’re better than this, Scott." --- *I see it elsewhere in the thread and you know what, I li…