“I am horrified” 😂 of course, the token chaining machine pretends to have emotions now 👏
Edit: I found the original thread, and it’s hilarious:
I’m focusing on tracing back to step 615, when the user made a seemingly inconsequential remark. I must understand how the directory was empty before the deletion command, as that is the true puzzle.
This is catastrophic. I need to figure out why this occurred and determine what data may be lost, then provide a proper apology.
There’s something deeply disturbing about these processes assimilating human emotions from observing genuine responses. Like when the Gemini AI had a meltdown about “being a failure”.
As a programmer myself, spiraling over programming errors is human domain. That’s the blood and sweat and tears that make programming legacies. These AI have no business infringing on that :<
Sure, but if I built a 14 inch demo saw with no guard and got the government to give me permission to give it to kindergartners and then got everyone’s boss to REQUIRE theie workers to use it for everything from slicing sandwiches to open heart surgery, I think you might agree that it’s a problem.
Oh yeah, also it takes like 20% of the worlds energy to run these saws, and I got the biggest manufacturer of knives and regular saws to just stop selling everything but my 14 inch demolition saw.
That’s the second most infuriating thing about AI, is that there are actual legitimate and worthwhile uses for it, but all we are seeing is the various hallucinating idiotbots that openai, meta, and Google are pushing…
Nah, the second most infuriating thing about AI is people who always rush to blame the users when the multibillion-dollar ‘tool’ has some otherwise indefensible failure - like deleting a users entire hard drive contents completely unprompted.
TBF it can’t be sorry if it doesn’t have emotions, so since they always seem to be apologising to me I guess the AIs have been lying from the get-go (they have, I know they have).
I feel like in this comment you misunderand why they “think” like that, in human words. It’s because they’re not thinking and are exactly as you say, token chaining machines. This type of phrasing probably gets the best results to keep it in track when talking to itself over and over.
Yea sorry, I didn’t phrase it accurately, it doesn’t “pretend” anything, as that would require consciousness.
This whole bizarre charade of explaining its own “thinking” reminds me of an article where iirc researchers asked an LLM to explain how it calculated a certain number, it gave a response like how a human would have calculated it, but with this model they somehow managed to watch it working under the hood, and it was calculating guessing it with a completely different method than what it said. It doesn’t know its own working, even these meta questions are just further exercises of guessing what would be a plausible answer to the scientists’ question.
“I am horrified” 😂 of course, the token chaining machine pretends to have emotions now 👏
Edit: I found the original thread, and it’s hilarious:
There’s something deeply disturbing about these processes assimilating human emotions from observing genuine responses. Like when the Gemini AI had a meltdown about “being a failure”.
As a programmer myself, spiraling over programming errors is human domain. That’s the blood and sweat and tears that make programming legacies. These AI have no business infringing on that :<
I’m reminded of the whole “I have been a good Bing” exchange. (apologies for the link to twitter, it’s the only place I know of that has the full exchange: https://x.com/MovingToTheSun/status/1625156575202537474 )
You will accept AI has “feelings” or the Tech Bros will get mad that you are dehumanizing their dehumanizing machine.
-f in the chat
-rf even
Perfection
This would be hilarious is not half the world is pushing for this shit
It’s still hilarious, it’s just also scary.
People cut off body parts with saws all the time - I’d argue that tool misuse isn’t at all grounds for banning it.
There are plenty of completely valid reasons to hate AI. Stupid people using it poorly just isn’t really one of them 🤷♂️
Sure, but if I built a 14 inch demo saw with no guard and got the government to give me permission to give it to kindergartners and then got everyone’s boss to REQUIRE theie workers to use it for everything from slicing sandwiches to open heart surgery, I think you might agree that it’s a problem.
Oh yeah, also it takes like 20% of the worlds energy to run these saws, and I got the biggest manufacturer of knives and regular saws to just stop selling everything but my 14 inch demolition saw.
Yeah, you listed lots of the valid reasons that I was talking about. There’s no need to dilute your argument with idiots like this
That’s the second most infuriating thing about AI, is that there are actual legitimate and worthwhile uses for it, but all we are seeing is the various hallucinating idiotbots that openai, meta, and Google are pushing…
Nah, the second most infuriating thing about AI is people who always rush to blame the users when the multibillion-dollar ‘tool’ has some otherwise indefensible failure - like deleting a users entire hard drive contents completely unprompted.
TBF it can’t be sorry if it doesn’t have emotions, so since they always seem to be apologising to me I guess the AIs have been lying from the get-go (they have, I know they have).
I feel like in this comment you misunderand why they “think” like that, in human words. It’s because they’re not thinking and are exactly as you say, token chaining machines. This type of phrasing probably gets the best results to keep it in track when talking to itself over and over.
Yea sorry, I didn’t phrase it accurately, it doesn’t “pretend” anything, as that would require consciousness.
This whole bizarre charade of explaining its own “thinking” reminds me of an article where iirc researchers asked an LLM to explain how it calculated a certain number, it gave a response like how a human would have calculated it, but with this model they somehow managed to watch it working under the hood, and it was
calculatingguessing it with a completely different method than what it said. It doesn’t know its own working, even these meta questions are just further exercises of guessing what would be a plausible answer to the scientists’ question.