3 ms·

I've been talking with AI during my morning commute (car) recently, instead of listening to something. It's a great partner to bounce ideas off of. I don't have

I've been talking with AI during my morning commute (car) recently, instead of listening to something. It's a great partner to bounce ideas off of. I don't have any friends that can or are willing to engage with ideas to the extent AI does.

macintux 2mo ago
I used ChatGPT as a tour guide when I was traveling last year. It was helpful to identify places I should stop to take a look, explaining local flora, fauna and geology. I'd rather have had a real tour guide, but for the price it was quite handy.
- newsomix9xl 2mo ago
  I think this is the economics that will play out more and more: a real human will provide better quality or more preferable services, but AI - maybe with a robot - will provide good enough for the price alternatives. If your choice is no doctor or an AI doctor for cheap, or a very expensive human doctor, the winner is: AI doctor.
Snoozle 2mo ago
it's not engaging or bouncing. it's simply responding as likely as it can to what would go after your sentences.
- Kudos 2mo ago
  I truly don't believe this kind of pedantic correction adds anything to the conversation. We _all_ know how they work technically, it's been beaten to death.
  - tough 2mo ago
    I think the problem is "how it technically works" to "how it feels" are different things in this case
    - brendoelfrendo 2mo ago
      I think there's also a problem that some people -- even on here -- seem to think that there is no fundamental difference between how a human engages in conversation vs an LLM, and thus talking to humans doesn't provide much value. "How it feels" is starting to bleed into how some of us think about our interactions with each other.
  - newsomix9xl 2mo ago
    I disagree. People think they know how it works, but then there's an article that says AI is a "black box" that will destroy humanity because no one knows how it works. So, do we know how it works or don't we?
sheepdestroyer 2mo ago
I would not talk to my friends about the stuff I bounce on AI. My meanest brain dead ideas get a rebuke, and I fight back to test grounds. I'd rightly get shamed for inflicting such undeveloped trash on anyone.
greggoB 2mo ago
Isn't AI's infinite willingness and lack of inhibition sort of the thing that people are increasingly voicing concern over? Put differently, maybe there's something fundamentally unhealthy to having a "discussion" with something that never says no. Hard to say if your friends are reasonable or not without knowing what ideas your hoping to engage with them in (or the manner of said engagement).
- tough 2mo ago
  As long as you are consciously aware you're not really talking to another human but just entertaining yourself I don't see the harm tbqh. Anything can become addictive, also i'd say given the costs of operating llm inference the labs themselves when offering the products try to limit your usage at different levels, ChatGPT for example will recommend you take a break and chill if you go hours with it (even with a 200 plan) I don't see how using an LLM is that different from surfing Wikipedia or Google, in all cases the computer is just giving me outputs i demand it from, in some or other shape, and can be abused etc
  - greggoB 2mo ago
    > As long as you are consciously aware This is a strong assumption; we know that people tend to be overly confident about their mental states. That conscious awareness will last all of two minutes for 99.9% of the population, with everyone claiming they are the 0.1%. > the labs themselves when offering the products try to limit your usage Yeah clearly as long as they have compute constraints, ChatGPT is for sure not doing that out of concern for the user's health, believing so would be incredibly naive. > I don't see how using an LLM is that different from surfing Wikipedia or Google, in all cases the computer is just giving me outputs i demand it from This is by far the biggest stretch of all of your arguments. Following this logic, you go to the library and find a book that gives you said outputs - are books now == LLMs? You ask someone for the time and that interaction == LLMs? There is evidently a major qualitative difference here, starting (but not ending) with "you are absolutely right".
- Animats 2mo ago
  > Put differently, maybe there's something fundamentally unhealthy to having a "discussion" with something that never says no. Well, XKCD suggested an alternative.[1] [1] https://xkcd.com/1027/ https://xkcd.com/1027/
chasd00 2mo ago
I haven’t thought of talking to an LLM in the car but I do like chatting. I treat it like a conversational Wikipedia.
cryptographical 2mo ago
Ai is good at replacing services (e.g cashier, research assistant, etc). But it should never replace friends, as it's too predictable. I discuss projects with chatgpt all the time, but I never talk about non-research stuff unless I want it to generate italian brainrot.

macintux 2mo ago

I used ChatGPT as a tour guide when I was traveling last year. It was helpful to identify places I should stop to take a look, explaining local flora, fauna and geology. I'd rather have had a real tour guide, but for the price it was quite handy.

newsomix9xl 2mo ago
I think this is the economics that will play out more and more: a real human will provide better quality or more preferable services, but AI - maybe with a robot - will provide good enough for the price alternatives. If your choice is no doctor or an AI doctor for cheap, or a very expensive human doctor, the winner is: AI doctor.

Snoozle 2mo ago

it's not engaging or bouncing. it's simply responding as likely as it can to what would go after your sentences.

Kudos 2mo ago
I truly don't believe this kind of pedantic correction adds anything to the conversation. We _all_ know how they work technically, it's been beaten to death.
- tough 2mo ago
  I think the problem is "how it technically works" to "how it feels" are different things in this case
  - brendoelfrendo 2mo ago
    I think there's also a problem that some people -- even on here -- seem to think that there is no fundamental difference between how a human engages in conversation vs an LLM, and thus talking to humans doesn't provide much value. "How it feels" is starting to bleed into how some of us think about our interactions with each other.
- newsomix9xl 2mo ago
  I disagree. People think they know how it works, but then there's an article that says AI is a "black box" that will destroy humanity because no one knows how it works. So, do we know how it works or don't we?

sheepdestroyer 2mo ago

I would not talk to my friends about the stuff I bounce on AI. My meanest brain dead ideas get a rebuke, and I fight back to test grounds. I'd rightly get shamed for inflicting such undeveloped trash on anyone.

greggoB 2mo ago

Isn't AI's infinite willingness and lack of inhibition sort of the thing that people are increasingly voicing concern over? Put differently, maybe there's something fundamentally unhealthy to having a "discussion" with something that never says no. Hard to say if your friends are reasonable or not without knowing what ideas your hoping to engage with them in (or the manner of said engagement).

tough 2mo ago
As long as you are consciously aware you're not really talking to another human but just entertaining yourself I don't see the harm tbqh. Anything can become addictive, also i'd say given the costs of operating llm inference the labs themselves when offering the products try to limit your usage at different levels, ChatGPT for example will recommend you take a break and chill if you go hours with it (even with a 200 plan) I don't see how using an LLM is that different from surfing Wikipedia or Google, in all cases the computer is just giving me outputs i demand it from, in some or other shape, and can be abused etc
- greggoB 2mo ago
  > As long as you are consciously aware This is a strong assumption; we know that people tend to be overly confident about their mental states. That conscious awareness will last all of two minutes for 99.9% of the population, with everyone claiming they are the 0.1%. > the labs themselves when offering the products try to limit your usage Yeah clearly as long as they have compute constraints, ChatGPT is for sure not doing that out of concern for the user's health, believing so would be incredibly naive. > I don't see how using an LLM is that different from surfing Wikipedia or Google, in all cases the computer is just giving me outputs i demand it from This is by far the biggest stretch of all of your arguments. Following this logic, you go to the library and find a book that gives you said outputs - are books now == LLMs? You ask someone for the time and that interaction == LLMs? There is evidently a major qualitative difference here, starting (but not ending) with "you are absolutely right".
Animats 2mo ago
> Put differently, maybe there's something fundamentally unhealthy to having a "discussion" with something that never says no. Well, XKCD suggested an alternative.[1] [1] https://xkcd.com/1027/ https://xkcd.com/1027/

chasd00 2mo ago

I haven’t thought of talking to an LLM in the car but I do like chatting. I treat it like a conversational Wikipedia.

cryptographical 2mo ago

Ai is good at replacing services (e.g cashier, research assistant, etc). But it should never replace friends, as it's too predictable. I discuss projects with chatgpt all the time, but I never talk about non-research stuff unless I want it to generate italian brainrot.