6 ms·

>I think most smart people overestimate the intelligence of others for a variety of reasons so they overestimate what it would take for a LLM to beat the output

by alickz 1y ago

>I think most smart people overestimate the intelligence of others for a variety of reasons so they overestimate what it would take for a LLM to beat the output of an average person. I think most people also _vastly_ overestimate how much positive attention the average person gets in their lives It wouldn't surprise me if, for most people, ChatGPT offers them more empathy and understanding than _anyone_ else _ever has_, at least on a consistent basis. That kind of indefatigable emotional labor is just not feasible for most, even on a very short term basis, even for those with large support networks We can argue over whether or not it's "real" empathy, but I don't believe we can argue with the emotions of our attention starved brothers and sisters

codr7 1y ago
It's a pretty sucky solution to that problem imo, and I can see a substantial risk that it causes people to withdraw even more from real relations.
- cjbgkagh 1y ago
  One concern that I do worry about is if LLMs are able to present an false attractive view of the world that the user will become increasingly dependent on the LLMs to maintain that view. A cult of 1. Reminds me of the episode 'Safe Space' from South Park but instead of Butters filtering content it'll be the LLM. People are already divorced enough from reality - but I see no reason why they couldn't be more divorced, at least temporarily.
  - danenania 1y ago
    It begs the question of who decides what “reality” is though. A lot of people have an unrealistically negative view of themselves and their abilities—often based on spending time around pessimistic or small-minded humans. In that case, if an AI increases someone’s confidence in themselves, you could say it’s giving them a stronger sense of reality by helping them to question distorted and self-limiting beliefs.
    - codr7 1y ago
      Reality as in the real world, it is what it is, no one decides.
      - danenania 1y ago
        We're talking about psychology, therapy, sycophancy, etc. None of this is empirical. If someone thinks they can, say, create a billion dollar startup, whether they can really do it or not is a subjective determination. The AI might tell the person they can do it. You might tell them they can't, that the AI is sycophantic, and that they should stop talking to it because they're losing touch with reality. But is the AI a sycophant, or are you an irrational pessimist?
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
        The AI will be saying the same thing to everyone. Rationally, what are the chances every single OpenAI customer will be building a billion dollar startup any time soon? But even it's more obvious than that. The sycophancy is plain old love bombing, which is a standard cult programming technique. As for startups - let's wait until the AI has built a few of its own, or at least mentored humans successfully.
        drdeca 1y ago
        That depends on whether they are capable of creating a billion dollar startup. If they aren’t, and I say they aren’t, then I am correct. If they are, and the AI’s output says they are, then AI’s output is correct.
        genrilz 1y ago
        We get into a bit of a weird space though when they know your opinions about them. I'm sure there are quite a few people who can only build a billion dollar startup if someone emotionally supports them in that endeavor. I'm sure more people could build such a startup if those around them provide knowledge or financial support. In the limit, pretty much anyone can build a billion dollar startup if handed a billion dollars. Are these people capable or not capable of building a building a billion dollar startup. EDIT: To be clear, I somehow doubt an LLM would be able to provide the level of support needed in most scenarios. However, you and others around the potential founder might make the difference. Since your assessment of the person likely influences the level of support you provide to them, your assessment can affect the chances of whether or not they successfully build a billion dollar startup.
- alickz 1y ago
  Hopefully there are better solutions to the fundamental limitations of societal empathy in the future, but for now i just can't see any Seems to me empathy on a societal scale has been receding as population grows, not increasing to match (or outpace) Telling people to seek empathy elsewhere to me will be about as useful as telling people at an oasis in the desert to look for water elsewhere, but i hope i'm wrong
rurp 1y ago
>We can argue over whether or not it's "real" empathy There's nothing to argue about, it's unambiguously not real empathy. Empathy from a human exists in a much broader context of past and future interactions. One reason human empathy is nice is because it is often followed up with actions. Friends who care about you will help you out in material ways when you need it. Even strangers will. Someone who sees a person stranded on the side of a road might feel for them and stop to lend a hand. ChatGPT will never do that, and not just because interaction mediums are so limited, but also because that's not the purpose of the tool. The purpose of ChatGPT is to make immense amounts of money and power for its owners, and a nice sounding chat bot currently happens to be an effective way of getting there. Sam Altman doesn't have empathy for random ChatGPT users he's never met and neither do the computer algorithms his company develops.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- alickz 1y ago
  >There's nothing to argue about, it's unambiguously not real empathy I think if a person can't tell the difference between empathy from a human vs empathy from a chatbot, it's a difference without a distinction If it activates the same neural pathways, and has the same results, then I think the mind doesn't care >One reason human empathy is nice is because it is often followed up with actions. Friends who care about you will help you out in material ways when you need it. This is what I think people vastly overestimate I don't think most people have such ready access to a friend who is both willing and able to perform such emotional labor, on demand, at no cost to themselves. I think the sad truth is that empathy is a much scarcer resource than we believe, not through any moral fault of our own, but because it's just the nature of things. The economics of emotions. We'll see what the future has in store for the tech anyway, but if it turns out that the average person gets more empathy from a chatbot than a human, it wouldn't surprise me
  - biker142541 1y ago
    >If it activates the same neural pathways, and has the same results, then I think the mind doesn't care Boiling it down to neural signals is a risky approach, imo. There are innumerable differences between these interactions. This isn't me saying interactions are inherently dangerous if artificial empathy is baked in, but equating them to real empathy is. Understanding those differences is critical, especially in a world of both deliberately bad actors and those who will destroy lives in the pursuit of profit by normalizing replacements for human connections.

by alickz 1y ago

codr7 1y ago

It's a pretty sucky solution to that problem imo, and I can see a substantial risk that it causes people to withdraw even more from real relations.

cjbgkagh 1y ago
One concern that I do worry about is if LLMs are able to present an false attractive view of the world that the user will become increasingly dependent on the LLMs to maintain that view. A cult of 1. Reminds me of the episode 'Safe Space' from South Park but instead of Butters filtering content it'll be the LLM. People are already divorced enough from reality - but I see no reason why they couldn't be more divorced, at least temporarily.
- danenania 1y ago
  It begs the question of who decides what “reality” is though. A lot of people have an unrealistically negative view of themselves and their abilities—often based on spending time around pessimistic or small-minded humans. In that case, if an AI increases someone’s confidence in themselves, you could say it’s giving them a stronger sense of reality by helping them to question distorted and self-limiting beliefs.
  - codr7 1y ago
    Reality as in the real world, it is what it is, no one decides.
    - danenania 1y ago
      We're talking about psychology, therapy, sycophancy, etc. None of this is empirical. If someone thinks they can, say, create a billion dollar startup, whether they can really do it or not is a subjective determination. The AI might tell the person they can do it. You might tell them they can't, that the AI is sycophantic, and that they should stop talking to it because they're losing touch with reality. But is the AI a sycophant, or are you an irrational pessimist?
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
        The AI will be saying the same thing to everyone. Rationally, what are the chances every single OpenAI customer will be building a billion dollar startup any time soon? But even it's more obvious than that. The sycophancy is plain old love bombing, which is a standard cult programming technique. As for startups - let's wait until the AI has built a few of its own, or at least mentored humans successfully.
      - drdeca 1y ago
        That depends on whether they are capable of creating a billion dollar startup. If they aren’t, and I say they aren’t, then I am correct. If they are, and the AI’s output says they are, then AI’s output is correct.
        genrilz 1y ago
        We get into a bit of a weird space though when they know your opinions about them. I'm sure there are quite a few people who can only build a billion dollar startup if someone emotionally supports them in that endeavor. I'm sure more people could build such a startup if those around them provide knowledge or financial support. In the limit, pretty much anyone can build a billion dollar startup if handed a billion dollars. Are these people capable or not capable of building a building a billion dollar startup. EDIT: To be clear, I somehow doubt an LLM would be able to provide the level of support needed in most scenarios. However, you and others around the potential founder might make the difference. Since your assessment of the person likely influences the level of support you provide to them, your assessment can affect the chances of whether or not they successfully build a billion dollar startup.
alickz 1y ago
Hopefully there are better solutions to the fundamental limitations of societal empathy in the future, but for now i just can't see any Seems to me empathy on a societal scale has been receding as population grows, not increasing to match (or outpace) Telling people to seek empathy elsewhere to me will be about as useful as telling people at an oasis in the desert to look for water elsewhere, but i hope i'm wrong

rurp 1y ago

>We can argue over whether or not it's "real" empathy There's nothing to argue about, it's unambiguously not real empathy. Empathy from a human exists in a much broader context of past and future interactions. One reason human empathy is nice is because it is often followed up with actions. Friends who care about you will help you out in material ways when you need it. Even strangers will. Someone who sees a person stranded on the side of a road might feel for them and stop to lend a hand. ChatGPT will never do that, and not just because interaction mediums are so limited, but also because that's not the purpose of the tool. The purpose of ChatGPT is to make immense amounts of money and power for its owners, and a nice sounding chat bot currently happens to be an effective way of getting there. Sam Altman doesn't have empathy for random ChatGPT users he's never met and neither do the computer algorithms his company develops.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
alickz 1y ago
>There's nothing to argue about, it's unambiguously not real empathy I think if a person can't tell the difference between empathy from a human vs empathy from a chatbot, it's a difference without a distinction If it activates the same neural pathways, and has the same results, then I think the mind doesn't care >One reason human empathy is nice is because it is often followed up with actions. Friends who care about you will help you out in material ways when you need it. This is what I think people vastly overestimate I don't think most people have such ready access to a friend who is both willing and able to perform such emotional labor, on demand, at no cost to themselves. I think the sad truth is that empathy is a much scarcer resource than we believe, not through any moral fault of our own, but because it's just the nature of things. The economics of emotions. We'll see what the future has in store for the tech anyway, but if it turns out that the average person gets more empathy from a chatbot than a human, it wouldn't surprise me
- biker142541 1y ago
  >If it activates the same neural pathways, and has the same results, then I think the mind doesn't care Boiling it down to neural signals is a risky approach, imo. There are innumerable differences between these interactions. This isn't me saying interactions are inherently dangerous if artificial empathy is baked in, but equating them to real empathy is. Understanding those differences is critical, especially in a world of both deliberately bad actors and those who will destroy lives in the pursuit of profit by normalizing replacements for human connections.