4 ms·

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 some

by 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/
- greggoB 2mo ago
  The alternative being having LLM responses be in the form of negging? Or did I not understand the reference?
pizzly 2mo ago
As usual a balance is needed. There is also a concern that society (friends, colleagues) that always shuts down your ideas just because they are different thus reducing creativity and progress. Sometimes you need a way to develop your ideas without the outright rejection and sometimes you need the filter of society to see if the ideas really hold up. Usually the time where ideas are most fragile to being destroyed is when they are just developed. Perfect time to brain storm and increase the strength of those ideas with AI before taking it to the filter of society.
- greggoB 2mo ago
  Agreed about balance, but you lost me after that - I really struggle to see a serious concern about society over-eagerly shutting down ideas, not when we live in a world in which all manner of ideas - including those that are disruptive and destructive - are by default celebrated for their "innovation". Any existing filters cannot be that stifling; we are hardly living in the Dark Ages.

by greggoB 2mo ago

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/

greggoB 2mo ago
The alternative being having LLM responses be in the form of negging? Or did I not understand the reference?

pizzly 2mo ago

As usual a balance is needed. There is also a concern that society (friends, colleagues) that always shuts down your ideas just because they are different thus reducing creativity and progress. Sometimes you need a way to develop your ideas without the outright rejection and sometimes you need the filter of society to see if the ideas really hold up. Usually the time where ideas are most fragile to being destroyed is when they are just developed. Perfect time to brain storm and increase the strength of those ideas with AI before taking it to the filter of society.

greggoB 2mo ago
Agreed about balance, but you lost me after that - I really struggle to see a serious concern about society over-eagerly shutting down ideas, not when we live in a world in which all manner of ideas - including those that are disruptive and destructive - are by default celebrated for their "innovation". Any existing filters cannot be that stifling; we are hardly living in the Dark Ages.