← Back to context

Comment by soerxpso

11 hours ago

Your example rewritten in intelligent English (I was curious):

> Note: the potential for a console freeze was previously noted but ignored. handoff-4.3-done.html stated, "could not break console, but [will need fixed later if I'm wrong]."

One could imagine that a perfect writer might also append: "It could be worth looking into what caused that wrong assumption, to prevent similar cases in the future," at most.

Everything else seems to be bad attempts at relatable writing to invoke emotion (an exercise that we should really stop trying to train emotionless matrix weights to attempt).

15 comments

soerxpso

Reply
ben_w  11 hours ago

> Everything else seems to be bad attempts at relatable writing to invoke emotion (an exercise that we should really stop trying to train emotionless matrix weights to attempt).

One of the things actual science fiction got wrong: to the extent that the thing AI does can be called "understanding", emotion is not unusually difficult for them to understand.

  • svachalek  10 hours ago

    I think this was the biggest shock of the original ChatGPT for me. Just how completely unrobotic its voice was compared to everything we'd ever imagined in sci fi. Even that early version was also way more adept at understanding things like implication and sarcasm than any movie AI.

    • pixelready  9 hours ago

      Me too. Almost every Sci-Fi AI proceeds from the premise that we will make something very obviously machine and then have to train it to seem more human. I was completely caught off guard by us taking the approach of distilling all available human output into a statistical model and using it to brute-force something resembling thought and personality through sheer data processing scale.

      The unsurprising part once it was clear that approach was viable, was that humans wouldn’t be able to help but anthropomorphize it. I feel like the movie Ex Machina is more relevant than ever.

      2 replies →

    • pdntspa  1 hour ago

      It learned from the best, no? There is a lot of sarcasm and implication on the internet.

    • ted_dunning  10 hours ago

      It may well become a safeguard that all bots must speak in a much less inflected voice to remind us not to particularly trust them.

Applejinx  19 minutes ago

This is the same as systemic bullshitting. Not the first time I've smelled it on fluffy LLM output. I think it's the result of the training trying to induce the LLMs to talk over users' heads even when they are professionals, to entice further use on the grounds of 'oh it's so smart I can't understand its genius train of thought', but I don't think eliciting language like that really taps into 'associations of smarter previous language users'. More likely it's 'associations of rampant bullshitters'.