3 ms·

Meta observation: this has to be the third most hated rally I have seen, only topped by Tesla and EVs in 2020 and crude oil in 2007

noosphr 1y ago
When one's job is potentially on the line one becomes a Luddite rather quickly.
- GolfPopper 1y ago
  Butlerian, surely.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  What profession do you have that made you a Luddite based on the current state of LLMs and AI? I'm an artist, programmer and musician, and is no closer to being a Luddite today than five years ago, not sure why others would either. Anti-capitalist or Anti-fascist I'd understand, considering the state of the world and the current direction.
  - noosphr 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - comestrelas 1y ago
      The state of AI is healing online discourse!
      - noosphr 1y ago
        That's my most downvoted and flagged post. Some people really don't like Ai even when it's useful.
        CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
        Maybe take 10 minutes (without Claude) and try to figure out why, I'm sure it could be helpful for future human-to-human conversations. Hint: The reasons are not "AI despite useful"
    - kazinator 1y ago
      Wow, Claude is quite off the mark here. First of all, the AI should not take the claim at face value. I would begin by questioning the assumption that "the response here misunderstood my post" and look for reasons why that is false, not just be a servile parrot to my interlocutor, and contrive for them ways their belief might be true. What happened in the conversation is that CaptainOfCoit obviously understands that the noosphr's post is a general remark about human nature. CaptainOfCoit is using the (highly popular Internet) debating strategy of presenting anecotal evidence. "Hey, I'm a datapoint against your generalization: I work in a number of areas all affected by AI, and, look at me, I'm not a Luddite. What areas are you working in that you see people turning into Luddites? Why, it can't be art, music or programming!". There is no misunderstanding, but only the fallacy of using a personal anecdote against a generalization that was never presented as absolute. It's actually kind of amazing that Claude didn't latch on to this angle.
      - noosphr 1y ago
        [flagged]
        zamadatix 1y ago
        Be it AI or a personal consult, it's generally more productive to engage on what one's own misunderstandings might be first and work out from that. It tends to wipe away a lot of, but not all (of course), the trust in these kinds of responses as being meaningful additions to moving the conversation forward on their own. Example from Claude in the reverse: When I posted asking "What profession do you have that made you a Luddite based on the current state of LLMs and AI?", CaptainOfCoit responded: "I'm an artist, programmer and musician, and is no closer to being a Luddite today than five years ago..." I initially wondered if this response implied I was the only person with such a profession who became skeptical of AI. Here's why that interpretation might occur, even though it's likely not what was meant: The Potential Misunderstanding: The phrasing "I'm an artist, programmer and musician, and is no closer to being a Luddite..." could be read as implicitly contrasting with my position—as if to say "I have these exact professions you're asking about, yet I didn't become a Luddite, so why did you?" This creates an unintended impression that my reaction might be unusual or isolated among people in these fields. What Was Likely Actually Meant: CaptainOfCoit was almost certainly just: - Answering my question directly by sharing their own professional background - Expressing genuine curiosity about why others would become more Luddite-leaning - Offering their own perspective that anti-capitalism or anti-fascism might be more justified stances than Luddism The Takeaway: Text-based conversations can create ambiguity. A straightforward personal statement can accidentally feel like an implicit challenge, especially when discussing contentious topics. CaptainOfCoit was likely just contributing their experience to the discussion, not suggesting my perspective was uniquely misguided.
  - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
    FWIW, I was genuinely curious about what exactly made parent a Luddite, but after the LLM responses I don't think I have any curiosity left.
- nextworddev 1y ago
  lol this. No one wants to admit this when it comes to explaining why AI adoption is slow
  - xnx 1y ago
    Everyone wants to use AI themselves so they can work less. No one wants their boss to use AI to replace them.
    - nextworddev 1y ago
      Exactly. Which is why businesses want to get rid of middle management, since middle managers thrive on having HC
      - smallnix 1y ago
        But then upper management becomes middle management. Or headcount is consolidated and still quantifies a mega-middlemanagers worth.
        nextworddev 1y ago
        Gotta start at some tree depth..
    - lenkite 1y ago
      Provide a good UBI that covers the living bills and I think people won't mind their boss using AI to replace them.

noosphr 1y ago

When one's job is potentially on the line one becomes a Luddite rather quickly.

GolfPopper 1y ago
Butlerian, surely.
CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
What profession do you have that made you a Luddite based on the current state of LLMs and AI? I'm an artist, programmer and musician, and is no closer to being a Luddite today than five years ago, not sure why others would either. Anti-capitalist or Anti-fascist I'd understand, considering the state of the world and the current direction.
- noosphr 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - comestrelas 1y ago
    The state of AI is healing online discourse!
    - noosphr 1y ago
      That's my most downvoted and flagged post. Some people really don't like Ai even when it's useful.
      - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
        Maybe take 10 minutes (without Claude) and try to figure out why, I'm sure it could be helpful for future human-to-human conversations. Hint: The reasons are not "AI despite useful"
  - kazinator 1y ago
    Wow, Claude is quite off the mark here. First of all, the AI should not take the claim at face value. I would begin by questioning the assumption that "the response here misunderstood my post" and look for reasons why that is false, not just be a servile parrot to my interlocutor, and contrive for them ways their belief might be true. What happened in the conversation is that CaptainOfCoit obviously understands that the noosphr's post is a general remark about human nature. CaptainOfCoit is using the (highly popular Internet) debating strategy of presenting anecotal evidence. "Hey, I'm a datapoint against your generalization: I work in a number of areas all affected by AI, and, look at me, I'm not a Luddite. What areas are you working in that you see people turning into Luddites? Why, it can't be art, music or programming!". There is no misunderstanding, but only the fallacy of using a personal anecdote against a generalization that was never presented as absolute. It's actually kind of amazing that Claude didn't latch on to this angle.
    - noosphr 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - zamadatix 1y ago
        Be it AI or a personal consult, it's generally more productive to engage on what one's own misunderstandings might be first and work out from that. It tends to wipe away a lot of, but not all (of course), the trust in these kinds of responses as being meaningful additions to moving the conversation forward on their own. Example from Claude in the reverse: When I posted asking "What profession do you have that made you a Luddite based on the current state of LLMs and AI?", CaptainOfCoit responded: "I'm an artist, programmer and musician, and is no closer to being a Luddite today than five years ago..." I initially wondered if this response implied I was the only person with such a profession who became skeptical of AI. Here's why that interpretation might occur, even though it's likely not what was meant: The Potential Misunderstanding: The phrasing "I'm an artist, programmer and musician, and is no closer to being a Luddite..." could be read as implicitly contrasting with my position—as if to say "I have these exact professions you're asking about, yet I didn't become a Luddite, so why did you?" This creates an unintended impression that my reaction might be unusual or isolated among people in these fields. What Was Likely Actually Meant: CaptainOfCoit was almost certainly just: - Answering my question directly by sharing their own professional background - Expressing genuine curiosity about why others would become more Luddite-leaning - Offering their own perspective that anti-capitalism or anti-fascism might be more justified stances than Luddism The Takeaway: Text-based conversations can create ambiguity. A straightforward personal statement can accidentally feel like an implicit challenge, especially when discussing contentious topics. CaptainOfCoit was likely just contributing their experience to the discussion, not suggesting my perspective was uniquely misguided.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  FWIW, I was genuinely curious about what exactly made parent a Luddite, but after the LLM responses I don't think I have any curiosity left.
nextworddev 1y ago
lol this. No one wants to admit this when it comes to explaining why AI adoption is slow
- xnx 1y ago
  Everyone wants to use AI themselves so they can work less. No one wants their boss to use AI to replace them.
  - nextworddev 1y ago
    Exactly. Which is why businesses want to get rid of middle management, since middle managers thrive on having HC
    - smallnix 1y ago
      But then upper management becomes middle management. Or headcount is consolidated and still quantifies a mega-middlemanagers worth.
      - nextworddev 1y ago
        Gotta start at some tree depth..
  - lenkite 1y ago
    Provide a good UBI that covers the living bills and I think people won't mind their boss using AI to replace them.