4 ms·

FTA: “Draft a 250-word paragraph in my typical writing style, detailing three examples to support the following point and cite your sources.” Not even the most

FTA: “Draft a 250-word paragraph in my typical writing style, detailing three examples to support the following point and cite your sources.” Not even the most detached corporate CEO would likely talk this way to their assistant, but it’s common with chatbots. I don't believe this man's ever actually seen CEO interact with an employee. Bosses talk like this to their subordinates all the time. Humans are plenty capable of being rude independently of learning it from talking to chatbots. Especially where employment is concerned.

cushychicken 3y ago
If anything, the mass appeal of the AI powered chatbot could be that everyone now has someone (something?) to bark orders at and do your bidding.
maroonblazer 3y ago
100%. I'll go on to suggest that we can do 2 or more things at once. Learning to talk to computers the 'old fashioned' way improved my communication skills immensely. E.g., getting specific about what outcome or result I'm interested in achieving; inputs I believe or assume (incorrectly?) are required; necessary constraints on the solution, etc. But, I can articulate all of that in a way that is personable yet professional. In the age of LLMs I think most of us will manage human-to-human interactions just fine.
pjc50 3y ago
It reminds me of exam rubric. Where instructions are concerned, concise and clear is good. The real problem Schneier is raising is when the "instructions to subordinate" style starts leaking into in-person interactions which do not have that relationship embedded.
mdip 3y ago
Face-to-face, I wouldn't expect that[0]. But in e-mail to direct subordinates, oh, they're so much worse. The last decade of my Telecom days I reported variously to our department director, our department VP and ultimately our CIO and I had no direct reports[1]. My favorite was when I reported to a particular director. She was famous for sending sentence fragments as requests that, if you didn't look at the subject line, you'd picture a warden ordering prisoners around. It was most noticeable because she was such a pleasant, easy going individual ... if you'd only ever met her through e-mail, you'd think she was angry all the time. Like, literally one liners shot off from a Blackberry "need patch reports pronto" (it was either all lower or ALL UPPER depending on what she was doing when she sent the message, which added a little extra flair sometimes). I don't know that we talk to each other all that politely via e-mail and written correspondence, already, especially in the above context. Other people are just "some opinion I don't like on a page" or "someone is wrong on the internet!", why would we converse with a chatbot any differently? And I don't treat Alexa any differently, TBH. I yell at it all the time. I've gotten used to just yelling "Alexa! Stop!" instead of more complex commands because the pre-GPT engine is extremely limited and it in no way feels like a real thing, either. And as long as I know the thing on the other end is a computer, whether it speaks to me or types to me, I'm going to similarly not care for the feelings it (presently?) does not have. This, however, does not affect the way I interact with others[2]. [0] Although, most reasonable CEOs would be very careful wording e-mails to employees they don't regularly encounter (understanding the "holy crap the CEO e-mailed me" shock). [1] I'm sure I explain this in a past comment, but it happened b/c all of the managers above me gradually were let go and I didn't have a natural fit. [2] Cue sarcastic comment. :)

cushychicken 3y ago

If anything, the mass appeal of the AI powered chatbot could be that everyone now has someone (something?) to bark orders at and do your bidding.

maroonblazer 3y ago

100%. I'll go on to suggest that we can do 2 or more things at once. Learning to talk to computers the 'old fashioned' way improved my communication skills immensely. E.g., getting specific about what outcome or result I'm interested in achieving; inputs I believe or assume (incorrectly?) are required; necessary constraints on the solution, etc. But, I can articulate all of that in a way that is personable yet professional. In the age of LLMs I think most of us will manage human-to-human interactions just fine.

pjc50 3y ago

It reminds me of exam rubric. Where instructions are concerned, concise and clear is good. The real problem Schneier is raising is when the "instructions to subordinate" style starts leaking into in-person interactions which do not have that relationship embedded.

mdip 3y ago

Face-to-face, I wouldn't expect that[0]. But in e-mail to direct subordinates, oh, they're so much worse. The last decade of my Telecom days I reported variously to our department director, our department VP and ultimately our CIO and I had no direct reports[1]. My favorite was when I reported to a particular director. She was famous for sending sentence fragments as requests that, if you didn't look at the subject line, you'd picture a warden ordering prisoners around. It was most noticeable because she was such a pleasant, easy going individual ... if you'd only ever met her through e-mail, you'd think she was angry all the time. Like, literally one liners shot off from a Blackberry "need patch reports pronto" (it was either all lower or ALL UPPER depending on what she was doing when she sent the message, which added a little extra flair sometimes). I don't know that we talk to each other all that politely via e-mail and written correspondence, already, especially in the above context. Other people are just "some opinion I don't like on a page" or "someone is wrong on the internet!", why would we converse with a chatbot any differently? And I don't treat Alexa any differently, TBH. I yell at it all the time. I've gotten used to just yelling "Alexa! Stop!" instead of more complex commands because the pre-GPT engine is extremely limited and it in no way feels like a real thing, either. And as long as I know the thing on the other end is a computer, whether it speaks to me or types to me, I'm going to similarly not care for the feelings it (presently?) does not have. This, however, does not affect the way I interact with others[2]. [0] Although, most reasonable CEOs would be very careful wording e-mails to employees they don't regularly encounter (understanding the "holy crap the CEO e-mailed me" shock). [1] I'm sure I explain this in a past comment, but it happened b/c all of the managers above me gradually were let go and I didn't have a natural fit. [2] Cue sarcastic comment. :)