3 ms·
I don't know how anyone can trust these things at all. What I want: a balanced, nuanced, deep engagement with a topic I don't already have mastered that may ne
by lotyrin 1y ago
I don't know how anyone can trust these things at all.
What I want: a balanced, nuanced, deep engagement with a topic I don't already
have mastered that may need to challenge my intuition or require of me some effort to research and correct my conception.
When I ask it to explain something I already understand quite well, which there is no broad public consensus about or the public consensus is known to be based in misconception, I will tend to get the public consensus view that there's no clear answer or provided an answer based in the misconception.
When I make it at all clear about what my conception is, I'll get a confirmation or reinforcement of my conception.
If I play a bit as a character who believes the opposite of my conception, unless my conception has a very, very clear basis in public consensus, I will get a confirmation or reinforcement of the opposite of my conception.
Why should I trust them in fields I'm not an expert in, given this? They want to please and serve rather than challenge you or inform you. Even when you ask them to be blunt and factual they do the theater of those things and not the substance. Their basis in Human linguistic outcome dooms them to pretend to be human which means people-pleasing or social-consensus-finding goals over truth-finding goals.
- anp 1y agoMaybe I’m just falling victim to my own cognitive biases (and/or financial incentives as a Google employee), but I get the closest to that experience among the frontier labs’ chat interfaces when I chat with Gemini.
- lotyrin 1y agohttps://g.co/gemini/share/0a0a38963df3 https://g.co/gemini/share/0a0a38963df3 Edit to add commentary: Not the worst, but it still wants to fall into one or another ideology or consequences-detached philosophy (favorable to people because they provide prescriptions without requiring expertise). Edit: my "out-of-character" message here is deliberately also played up a bit (overly judgmental and emotionally charged) and I kinda think it should challenge me for that.
- anp 1y agoThis was an interesting read since it's unlike any conversation I've had with the current bots, I haven't done a lot of exploratory probing of conversations I wouldn't have otherwise had with a person. That said, I'm a bit surprised it agreed with you about the persuasiveness of the final approach (and maybe there's the agreeability to counter my previous point?). I agree a consequentialist argument could be compelling in the abstract but in my experience many bigoted people who care about things like the NAP will have emotional responses to social compromise so extreme that it wouldn't be a good idea to challenge them directly on the consequences of their actions. Without having any prior relationship with someone I would maybe expect that I'd achieve more influence with them if I learn to speak their own priorities back to them before I gently challenge them via contrast rather than argument.
- lotyrin 1y agoYeah. Consequentialism is my position, but I also accept it's not convincing. So, at least one side or the other of this conversation the bot is being too agreeable, probably both.
- pluc 1y agoWhat you are describing is human interactions with another human who is knowledgeable in that specific field. AKA the before-AI.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lotyrin 1y agoI think it's more the Before Internet, or at least before Eternal September.
- pluc 1y agoBefore AI people were still able to question results searches gave them and had the option to keep investigating. You can't really do that with AI, it encourages a question-answer format.
- vo2maxer 1y agoIronic. I’ve spent years with humans doing the same thing, only with more naps.