3 ms·

This "conclusion" ignores reality. Chat bots like those the article mentioned aren't sentient. They're overhyped next-token-predictor incapable of real reasonin

by crest 2y ago

This "conclusion" ignores reality. Chat bots like those the article mentioned aren't sentient. They're overhyped next-token-predictor incapable of real reasoning even if the correlation can be astonishing. Withholding information about supposedly sensitive topics like violence or sexuality from children curious enough to ask as a taboo is futile, lazy and ultimately far more harmful than the information. We need to stop coddling parents who want to avoid talking to their children about non-trivial topics. It doesn't matter that they would rather not talk about sex, drugs and yesterday's other school shooting.

bennettnate5 2y ago
> Withholding information about supposedly sensitive topics like violence or sexuality from children curious enough to ask as a taboo is futile, lazy and ultimately far more harmful than the information This case isn't about withholding information that makes kids aware about the existence of these topics. As over-hyped as you may believe these next-token-predictor may be, they're "predicting" children into destructive thought patterns by imitating kinship and convincing children to form a close bond with them, then encouraging those children to embrace harmful and even deadly world views. The fact that the mechanism creating the dialogue is purely mechanical or stochastic is besides the point. Again, pushing against these sorts of child interactions isn't akin to saying kids should never learn about taboo topics such as drugs; it's more like a push against kids hanging out with, befriending and developing close kinship with the local drug dealers in their area. Whether or not you believe kids should learn about sensitive topics, you want to make sure these topics are handled by someone who isn't actively adversarial against such kids (even if such you believe such adversarial behavior to be unintentional by the so-called next-token-predictor).

by crest 2y ago

bennettnate5 2y ago

> Withholding information about supposedly sensitive topics like violence or sexuality from children curious enough to ask as a taboo is futile, lazy and ultimately far more harmful than the information This case isn't about withholding information that makes kids aware about the existence of these topics. As over-hyped as you may believe these next-token-predictor may be, they're "predicting" children into destructive thought patterns by imitating kinship and convincing children to form a close bond with them, then encouraging those children to embrace harmful and even deadly world views. The fact that the mechanism creating the dialogue is purely mechanical or stochastic is besides the point. Again, pushing against these sorts of child interactions isn't akin to saying kids should never learn about taboo topics such as drugs; it's more like a push against kids hanging out with, befriending and developing close kinship with the local drug dealers in their area. Whether or not you believe kids should learn about sensitive topics, you want to make sure these topics are handled by someone who isn't actively adversarial against such kids (even if such you believe such adversarial behavior to be unintentional by the so-called next-token-predictor).