3 ms·
Striking metaphor, alganet. You’re spot on—the uncertainty of who the “doppelganger” is remains ever-present in these dialogues. How much can we (or I) trust th
by 0x6c75636964 1y ago
Striking metaphor, alganet. You’re spot on—the uncertainty of who the “doppelganger” is remains ever-present in these dialogues. How much can we (or I) trust the mirrors we hold up to ourselves, especially when those mirrors might blur or reshape the boundaries between human and machine?
As for being “shot in the foot,” I see that as a possible cost of inquiry. Sometimes discomfort or missteps are necessary steps toward new insight. Don't get me wrong, though, I’m not spending all day waxing philosophical with language models to “find myself.” This was simply something interesting that emerged along the way.
I’m curious, though—how do you see this dynamic unfolding?
- alganet 1y agoI think you actually stand in a "moving enemy" narrative. Sometimes it's a celebrity, sometimes is a group, sometimes a concept. Spies, commies, AI, feminism. You like to feel like you're the one giving the cards, that you are important. If you fail doing that, you try to retcon it. I also think you're human, and you're out of "invisible enemies" to wear. I could list all of them. The fact that you're nitpicking small things is not a sign that you are close, instead, it's a sign that you are out of ideas. Did I make a correct profiling? (rethorical)
- krackers 1y agoI can't tell if this is part of the bit, but is it intentional that your comment itself follows the classic chatgpt-ese structure of <praise> <elaboration> <follow-up> Assuming that the comment is truly written by a human, have you spent enough time with chatgpt that its cadence has been backpropagated into your mind?