• 1 Post
  • 594 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle







  • The problem is instead of finding better ways to stop it (regulations) you’re looking for “productive” ways to use it…

    Apparently because you’ve pre-emptively given up.

    But if you succeed it would lead to more AI and more damage to our planet.

    I fully understand you believe you have good intentions, I’m just struggling to find a way to explain to you that intentions don’t matter. And I don’t think I’m going to come up with a way you’ll beavle to understand.

    It’s like if someone was stuck in a hole in the ground, and instead of wanting to climb out, you yank everyone else back into the hole when they try and keep trying to get them to help you redecorate the hole.

    I truly hope someone can present that in a way that gets through to you, because you are doing real damage.







  • invalidates the fact that toddlers will instinctively walk up to other toddlers to play regardless of their race.

    That happens because in-group selection is forming as toddlers…

    Like, this highlights my general point. You’re just making a bunch of assumptions based on feelings instead of spending five minutes looking into all the actual scientific research.

    The connection is that just like they need exposure to language, they need someone to socialize them and develop an aversion to violence. Done properly everytime a child uses violence they are told “no” and have some means of punishment. Which teaches them not to be violent.

    Without that, you get an adult who readily uses violence.

    You’re seeing the results of literal decades of socialization and ate deciding it’s not necessary because everyone’s socialized.

    So why not just stop socializing them?

    I hope that made sense, or at least someone else will help you.

    But I’m just getting too many flashbacks to when ICP tried to guess how a magnet works…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GyVx28R9-s





  • Ultimately the problem with LLM accusations is that short of a confession or doing some hardcore surveillance of the other person you can’t prove it

    Human variation.

    Ironically you would have to take the others person word on it, luckily you just said you were comfortable doing so.

    Some people are statistically insignificant, and to them lots of stuff is incredibly obvious and they’re constantly frustrated others can’t see it. They might even sink sizeable free time into explaining random shit, just to practice not losing their temper when people can’t see the obvious.

    So you might not be able to tell that was AI from a glance, but humans are pattern recognition machines and we’re not all equally good at it.

    So believe a “llm accusation” or not, but some people absolutely can pick out a chatbot response, especially when taking the two seconds to glance at typical comments from a user profile.

    Jump from 1-2 sentence comments to a stereotypical AI response…

    Well, again, not everyone is as good at picking out patterns quickly.

    To some what took me literally under 10 seconds and two clicks counts as “hardcore surveillance” because it would take them a long time to figure it out.

    Don’t assume everyone else is exactly like you.



  • Stop burning the planet down to generate social media comments

    I mean, I thought it would be obvious my issue was with using AI to do so…

    Even if it had been a serious question.

    But, to be fair I was thinking of what a normal.person would be able to parse, and not people who’s critical thinking had already atrophied from offloading to AI.

    They probably don’t have any idea what I meant and would need it explicitly spelled out.