Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
Reminds me of this:
I think atproto is a good protocol, but god bluesky-the-company is dogshit.
If we're going to focus on form instead of content, it's amusing that "if you say mean things about ai then you're a bigot" is the exact same form as "if you say mean things about Trump then you're a terrorist."
If you say the same bigoted arguments, you're like a bigot.
If you say the same terrorist arguments then you're like a terrorist.
Except, the people saying mean stuff about Trump are much less terroristic that trump supporters.
The forms are the same (it's the most basic sylogism in fact). The contents isn't, and the merits of antecedents matter.
the post: https://bsky.app/profile/hailey.at/post/3m2f66lgh2c2v .
The person is a bluesky engineer.
Not only that, she introduced mass surveillance to Bluesky and is brainstorming further methods of such in response to getting clowned on so hard.
Yeah, I'm not touching bluesky's servers after this.
Migration luckily works pretty well on atproto.
Rainbow painted fascist.
Scratch the surface too hard, oops, its another shitlib.
God I am so tired of idiots confusing identity politics and virtue signalling with being left wing, but apparently, most people really are just skin deep.
Thanks for surfacing this. Holy shit.
And to think all this could have been solved by bsky simply hiring some communication specialists and treating the current events like a crisis, and acting like their users are the police.
Well. 'Engineer'. You know it's all vibes to them.
Hoo boy. The original person being reposted continues on their original post that they believe we cannot be certain that genAI does not have feelings.
How do we have people wasting their time arguing about software having feelings when we haven’t even managed to convince the majority of people that fish and crabs and stuff can feel pain even though they don’t make a frowny face when you hurt them.
That's easy, it's because LLM output is a reasonable simulation of sounding like a person. Fooling people's consciousness detector is just about their whole thing at this point.
Crabs should look into learning to recite the pledge of allegiance in the style of Lady GaGa.
Just complete the delusional circuit and tell them you can't be sure they aren't an AI, ask them how they would prove they aren't.
I'm so confused reading all this.
Their argument is something like this:
People might say something like "ai is incapable of thinking" or "ai is stupid", but if you replace the word "ai" with something like "women", you're saying something unacceptable.
So they're attributing personhood to AI.
Before it has come anywhere close to meaningfully mimicking conciousness.
Are they stupid?
AI believers believe that stringing random words together is equal to consciousness, they absolutely are stupid.
Perhaps because it reflects their level of consciousness.
Yeah that was my biggest takeaway is these posts seem to assume sentience in what's little more than a sophisticated "most likely next word" generator. There's tons of cool things that can be done with these new machine learning tools, but they are not sentient, they are not close to sentience and we may never invent artificial sentience.
The one thing we now know for sure is we can damn well convince people of sentience artificially far more easily than I ever suspected
Ah makes sense now! So if I change the meaning, then the meaning changes. Man, that’s brilliant!
I feel certain this person could come up with even one example of someone attacking an LLM for having the wrong “bits”.
I love how this is so close to a cogent critique of people literally just repeating racist jokes but using a word swap to make them acceptable, and then the "(whatever that means)" hits and it all falls into place.
.Hailey.at may currently be dating an AI and feels insecure about others judging them, so they must convince themselves that their linguistic vibrator has a soul.
Related chain in the sack: https://awful.systems/post/5776862/8965566
One of the replies talking about someone celebrating Hitler's death regularly, even if they're a survivor of the camps, is mentally ill?
https://youtube.com/shorts/aHoUPEhjbN4
The only good take I've seen on this matter.
Oh, hey, that's the "Mikhail Gorbachev Caused Skibidi Toilet" guy
I refuse to click that link and instead choose to believe that Mikhail Gorbachev caused Skibidi Toilet unironically.
It's pretty unironic. It's a legit chain of culture and economics that leads from Gorbachev straight to Skibidi Toilet as they evolved and morphed over time from external influences.
It's also the guy who insists "chat" is a fourth person pronoun. Frankly I now go out of my way to avoid his stuff because that take was so ludicrously stupid I no longer trust anything he has to say.
Based solely on the source this man doesn’t seem to deserve any ire. In fact he breaks down the statement “chat is a 4th person pronoun” quite well. What’s stuck in your craw, old fruit?
Well, folks, it deserves ire because it's a ridiculously incorrect statement delivered in an authoritative tone. Chat is a noun and it's used the exact same way as many other nouns. To claim it's grammatically a pronoun you have to either misunderstand what pronouns are or misunderstand how it's being used.
The entire thing boils down to a rhetorical trick: "here are the ways chat is not like other pronouns, so it's reasonable to say it's in a fourth category of pronoun." It entices you to accept the incorrect premise that it's a pronoun and then try to come up with flaws in the inarguable part, which is that this noun doesn't function the same way any pronoun would.
Yeah nah, that’s not what he says at all. In that video, he says: “there is no accepted definition of a fourth person pronoun, here are some concepts that are sometimes referred to as the fourth person, does the modern usage of “chat” fit any of these?” and the answer is: “in some specific ways yes, in other ways no.”
I don’t think he’s the one that started the idea of chat being a fourth person pronoun, I think he’s just discussing the statement and using it as an opportunity to communicate some linguistic concepts, which is cool and good. Also, what’s in your craw, different person?
It's not a pronoun, so if one is pretending to talk about linguistics authoritatively one should know that and clearly state it to your audience so that they're not misled into thinking that calling it a fourth-person pronoun is in any way reasonable.
I've rewatched the video in case I was being uncharitable. Nope. He accepts the premise (direct quote: "that's kind of true"). He then does the exact thing I said, which is argue that it's not acting like a normal pronoun: "the 'fourth person' can also refer to a generic pronoun [...] it doesn't refer to a specific referent, like 'he' or 'she'. [...] if 'chat' is being used to refer to nobody in particular, then arguably it is a new fourth person pronoun." This is complete and utter nonsense packaged as exciting linguistic concepts, which is not at all "cool and good."
(As a bonus bit of wrongness that I didn't catch on the first watch: he says that chat used like "y'all" is third person plural, which is another thing that maybe you shouldn't get wrong in a supposedly educational video.)
well i mean you are being uncharitable. This is a tiktok, not, like, a paper. “Kind of true” doesn’t mean “absolutely true in all cases across space, time, and other universes”. Yes, he did misidentify “y’all” (it is second person plural) but that just changes what the statement should have meant to “chat is used as a second person plural pronoun”.
I think this analysis is about the usage of “chat is this true/real” outside of streams. Like if someone said out loud “chat is this true” to nobody in particular. Or in like, a meme or something.
No, don't be silly. "Chat, is this true?" does not start with a pronoun. Here "chat" is a noun, just like the nouns in "Peter, is this true?" or "Dude, is this true?" or "Friends, Romans, countrymen; is this true?" or "Ladies and gentlemen, The Weeknd."
Addressing someone does not require them to be present or real, so the presence or absence of a literal chat does not somehow transmogrify this noun into a pronoun.