3 ms·

Because that is not the only experience me an others have with this technology. The whole field seems to be poised by bullshitting. Don't get me wrong, it's a

Because that is not the only experience me an others have with this technology. The whole field seems to be poised by bullshitting. Don't get me wrong, it's a fascinating and extremely dangerous technology but it's clearly over-hyped.

ares623 1y ago
A bullshit god machine worshipped by bullshitters
- mptest 1y ago
  earnest question, hope this does not come off as skeptical of the skeptical position on ai and especially their salesmen. I ask because I share your skepticism, not because i think it's silly, to be clear. does it ever occur to your types of commenters (derisive of an entire field because of personal experience) that some people who talk about stuff like control systems/ai/safety recognize this, and it's actually why they want sensible policies surrounding the tech? not because they're afraid of skynet, but because they observe both, the reading comprehension statistics of a populace over time, and the technological rate of progress? tech very clearly doesn't have to be a god to do serious societal damage... e.g. fossil fuel use alone...social media has arguably done irreparable harm with fairly simple algorithms... the ottomans went to great lengths to keep the printing press from their empire, and certainly not because it was bullshit or god. Or do you recognize those types and classify them as a negligible minority?
  - jrflowers 1y ago
    > does it ever occur to your types of commenters I can’t speak for ares623 but there are some people that don’t agree that the software that generates text that agrees with everything that you say if you say it twice is the same thing as the printing press. It’s like if you imagine that the slot machine was just invented and because of enormous advertising and marketing campaigns it has become hard to tell the difference between marketing material written by the slot machine manufacturers and stuff written by folks that really really like pulling the lever on the slot machine
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    People often see liars or propagandists as required to take an extreme position. For a recent example that actually played out, let's say I'm a media site that wants to run a publicity campaign for Sam Bankman-Fried after it came out that he's a conman, in part because he previously donated large sums of money to me and/or interests I care about. Does that mean I now evangelize him like he's the most amazing and noble person ever? No, because that reeks of insincerity. Instead, you acknowledge the issues, and then aim to 'contextualize' them. It's not 'a person of minimal ethical compass doing scummy things because of a lust for money', but instead it's him being misguided or misled - perhaps a naive genius, who was genuinely trying in earnest to do the right thing, but found himself in over his head. It's no longer supposed to be basic white collar crime but a 'complex and nuanced issue.' And it's the same thing in all domains. Somebody taking a 'nuanced' position does not mean they actually care at all about the nuance, but that they may believe that as being the most effective way of convincing you to do, or believe, what they want you to. And the worst part is that humanity is extremely good at cognitive dissonance. The first person a very good liar convinces is himself.
simianwords 1y ago
You are wrong though, reasoning produces way better results as evidenced by benchmarks. The amount of bullshitting reduces drastically - just like when humans think before giving an answer. Why should we accept your anecdotal evidence in favour of statistical evidence on the contrary?
- Lapel2742 1y ago
  > reasoning produces way better results I doubt the whole concept of calling it "thinking" or "reasoning". If it's automated context engineering, call it that. The bullshit is in the terms used.
  - simianwords 1y ago
    Why is thinking not a good word to use for it?
    - ffsm8 1y ago
      Because it unnecessarily anthropomorphizes it to create the illusion that there is intelligence behind it (in the traditional sense, where the intelligence is synonymous with being aware of its existence and embodied) But I personally don't have a big problem with the term in this context. Our industry have been using misleading terms since the beginning to describe things that somewhat resemble whatever it's called after. Like literally from the start, "bootstrapping"

ares623 1y ago

A bullshit god machine worshipped by bullshitters

mptest 1y ago
earnest question, hope this does not come off as skeptical of the skeptical position on ai and especially their salesmen. I ask because I share your skepticism, not because i think it's silly, to be clear. does it ever occur to your types of commenters (derisive of an entire field because of personal experience) that some people who talk about stuff like control systems/ai/safety recognize this, and it's actually why they want sensible policies surrounding the tech? not because they're afraid of skynet, but because they observe both, the reading comprehension statistics of a populace over time, and the technological rate of progress? tech very clearly doesn't have to be a god to do serious societal damage... e.g. fossil fuel use alone...social media has arguably done irreparable harm with fairly simple algorithms... the ottomans went to great lengths to keep the printing press from their empire, and certainly not because it was bullshit or god. Or do you recognize those types and classify them as a negligible minority?
- jrflowers 1y ago
  > does it ever occur to your types of commenters I can’t speak for ares623 but there are some people that don’t agree that the software that generates text that agrees with everything that you say if you say it twice is the same thing as the printing press. It’s like if you imagine that the slot machine was just invented and because of enormous advertising and marketing campaigns it has become hard to tell the difference between marketing material written by the slot machine manufacturers and stuff written by folks that really really like pulling the lever on the slot machine
- somenameforme 1y ago
  People often see liars or propagandists as required to take an extreme position. For a recent example that actually played out, let's say I'm a media site that wants to run a publicity campaign for Sam Bankman-Fried after it came out that he's a conman, in part because he previously donated large sums of money to me and/or interests I care about. Does that mean I now evangelize him like he's the most amazing and noble person ever? No, because that reeks of insincerity. Instead, you acknowledge the issues, and then aim to 'contextualize' them. It's not 'a person of minimal ethical compass doing scummy things because of a lust for money', but instead it's him being misguided or misled - perhaps a naive genius, who was genuinely trying in earnest to do the right thing, but found himself in over his head. It's no longer supposed to be basic white collar crime but a 'complex and nuanced issue.' And it's the same thing in all domains. Somebody taking a 'nuanced' position does not mean they actually care at all about the nuance, but that they may believe that as being the most effective way of convincing you to do, or believe, what they want you to. And the worst part is that humanity is extremely good at cognitive dissonance. The first person a very good liar convinces is himself.

simianwords 1y ago

You are wrong though, reasoning produces way better results as evidenced by benchmarks. The amount of bullshitting reduces drastically - just like when humans think before giving an answer. Why should we accept your anecdotal evidence in favour of statistical evidence on the contrary?

Lapel2742 1y ago
> reasoning produces way better results I doubt the whole concept of calling it "thinking" or "reasoning". If it's automated context engineering, call it that. The bullshit is in the terms used.
- simianwords 1y ago
  Why is thinking not a good word to use for it?
  - ffsm8 1y ago
    Because it unnecessarily anthropomorphizes it to create the illusion that there is intelligence behind it (in the traditional sense, where the intelligence is synonymous with being aware of its existence and embodied) But I personally don't have a big problem with the term in this context. Our industry have been using misleading terms since the beginning to describe things that somewhat resemble whatever it's called after. Like literally from the start, "bootstrapping"