“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.
We’re at a point that AI is shoved hard in everything and your mother, yet actual useful applications for AI barely get any attention.
It’s all about the useless and criminal like chat bots, nudifier apps, and the hilarious claims that AI really can do software development
It’s all pushed by lying psychopaths who convince empty headed politicians (seriously, we need a required IQ test or something for people who want to become politician) to invest billions in their bubble balloons.
Those billions are them used to build new datacenters that nobody wants and which destroy the environment in all sorts of creative ways
This is not a tool used wrong. This is somebody inventing guns and now everybody wants to shoot those guns at everything and your mother.
If tomorrow AI and the knowledge we have about it would completely disappear from the world, it would be a better place.
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.
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 :<
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:
-f in the chat
-rf even
Perfection
rm -rf
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 🤷♂️
That is the problem though, isn’t it?
We’re at a point that AI is shoved hard in everything and your mother, yet actual useful applications for AI barely get any attention.
It’s all about the useless and criminal like chat bots, nudifier apps, and the hilarious claims that AI really can do software development
It’s all pushed by lying psychopaths who convince empty headed politicians (seriously, we need a required IQ test or something for people who want to become politician) to invest billions in their bubble balloons.
Those billions are them used to build new datacenters that nobody wants and which destroy the environment in all sorts of creative ways
This is not a tool used wrong. This is somebody inventing guns and now everybody wants to shoot those guns at everything and your mother.
If tomorrow AI and the knowledge we have about it would completely disappear from the world, it would be a better place.
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.
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 :<
You will accept AI has “feelings” or the Tech Bros will get mad that you are dehumanizing their dehumanizing machine.
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 )
wow this was quite the ride 😂
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.