Technology

I would rather have the politicians consult a plain old magic 8 ball than one controlled by Scam Altman.

Most LLMs are literally "tell you whatever you want to hear " machines unfortunately. I've gotten high praise from ChatGPT for all my ideas until I go "but hang on, wouldn't this factor stop it from being feasible" and then it agrees with me that my original idea was a bit shit lmao

This is the unintentional uncanny valley for me in AI.

I ( was forced to ) use chatGTP for work. It can talk about everything and sounds very confident and seems reliable to always come up with something to help you solve your problems.

You talk with it about some niche content and suddenly have an ardent fan of said niche content responding. It surely knows every little bit of info of that niche and surprises you with funny, but apt quotes from your favorite show in the middle of conversations about something else.

This is just from a tiny bit of interaction, while at work.

I can imagine people completely overwhelmed, by having their thoughts confirmed and supported by something that seems so intelligent, responsive and remembers all your conversations. It literally remembers each word.

For many people it may be the first time in their life, that they experience a positive response to their thoughts. Not only that, they also found someone eager to talk with them about it.

One thing I struggle with AI is the answers it gives always seem plausable, but any time I quiz it on things I understand well, it seems to constantly get things slightly wrong. Which tells me it is getting everything slightly wrong, I just don't know enough to know it.

I see the same issue with TV. Anyone who works in a compicated field has felt the sting of watching a TV show fail to accurate represent it while most people watching just assume that's how your job works.

William MacKenzie King, the longest serving Prime Minister in Canada used to commune with spirits via psychic mediums including those of his dead dogs. It was only revealed after his death but was a big part of his life.

I agree it's weird.

Bad news friend. The number of atheist heads of state is surprisingly low.

Fuck no. Rather an incompetent politician than a hallucinating sycophant just telling you what you want to hear.

It's a woman

It can't make things any worse...

Speed running us towards the Dune timeline, nice

Except those prompts are retained by OpenAI, and you don't know who's got access to that. They've had chats leak before.

But it doesn't know anything. At all. Does Sweden not have a fuck ton of people that are trained to gather intelligence?

AI chat bots don't have their own opinions. All they do is regurgitate other opinions, and you have no idea the motivation for how those opinions are weighted.

there absolutely is something wrong with sending the basis for decisions in matters of state to a foreign actor, though.

here's my kneejerk reaction: my prime minister is basing his decisions partly on the messages of an unknown foreign actor, and sending information about state internals to that unknown foreign actor.

whether it's ai or not is a later issue.

Absolutely incorrect. Bullshit. And horseshoe theory itself is largely bullshit.

(Succinct response taken from Reddit post discussing the topic)

"Horseshoe Theory is slapping "theory" on a strawman to simplify WHY there's crossover from two otherwise conflicting groups. It's pseudo-intellectualizing it to make it seem smart."

This ignores the many, many reasons we keep telling you why we find it dangerous, inaccurate, and distasteful. You don't offer a counter argument in your response so I can only assume it's along the lines of, "technology is inevitable, would you have said the same if the Internet?" Which is also a fallacious argument. But go ahead, give me something better if I assume wrong.

I can easily see why people would be furious their elected leader is abdicating thought and responsibility to an often wrong, unaccountably biased chat bot.

Furthermore, your insistance continues to push an acceptance of AI on those who clearly don't want it, contributing to the anger we feel at having it forced upon us

If someone says they got a second opinion from a physician known for being wrong half the time would you not wonder why they didn’t choose someone more reliable for something as important as their health? AI is notorious for providing incomplete, irrelevant, heavily slanted, or just plain wrong info. Why give it any level of trust to make national decisions? Might as well, I dunno…use a bible? Some would consider that trustworthy.