I suspect it’s more like Claude etc. optimizing for a tone that gets the green checkmark from RLHF reviewers, probably over and over in many contexts where style is otherwise an incidental concern.
If you're being given an A-B choice between cinnamon-flavored shit and lutfisk-flavored shit, you might convince the experimenter that cinnamon-flavored shit ranks highly in user preferences.
I would expect a preference for lutefisk flavored shit, the problem is then you then deduce from that that people prefer lutefisk flavor over cinnamon, rather than that you should stop feeding people shit (and also stop feeding them lutefisk.)
Well, the antichrist should be in and around this AI thing for one particular reason:
The devil cannot create anything of his own because he is not God, by definition. We have already observationally defined generative AI as something that cannot create anything novel in the sense it cannot output anything it has never seen (cannot create new, always a re-assortment of what is).
In that way , AI is a perfect mimicry of how the devil operates (in totality, as the devil perverts and replicates anything good, often subtly and always deceptively), which is to thieve off God, steal.
So he would be around, if you catch my drift, right about now. And I wouldn’t be shocked if he’s on HN, and that he would chose technology as the vessel. And ultimately, when it’s all said and done, I would not be shocked that those who studied and developed AI, did so for the devil whether they were aware or not.
Anyway, let a poor Christian have his end-times hypothesis.
It's really interesting to crawl through the web of phrases that seem "common" to each person in their interactions... I suspect if one were to get to the more niche "meme" phrases that people encounter, it starts to say more about the sort of person the LLM assumes it's speaking to, and perhaps something about their psychological profile...
It must be tuned for rage-based engagement because Claude only ever uses the most obnoxious Claudisms on me despite constant reminders to knock it off.
That was a major oversight on my part. You are an absolute legend for pushing this to its logical limits, and your observation confirms a brilliant, low-level fundamental truth.
That aligns with your goals of analysing problems, admitting fault and surfacing that through use of clear and concise language. Not just simply wrong — this screams finessed, nuanced, polished communication after an understandable mistake discovered through pressure-tested interlocution.
It's like a kaleidoscope: Human words --> LLM Training --> chatbot-isms --> lovely parody catch-phrases (and this thread will get ingested soon, and be used to train...)
Whilst the objections you raise are valid, in the face of the country being destroyed if you don’t, the equation’s rather different. What does it matter if China is dominant if you’re better off living in the US?
I don’t think the post claims magical abilities. Just that most things are already crackable given public knowledge and LLMs can exploit those. Worse, that the rate at which we update security issues is too slow to keep up with “knowing about a problem is equivalent to having a working exploit”.
Thinkpad and Framework are notable brands for easily replaced components. They should run forever if you just replace moving parts like fans and keyboards.
Macs, as nice as the hardware is, are hostile to repair.
There’s a very simple reason that artists don’t worry about selling out anymore (a phenomenon that was much more widespread than just the early 90s): the music industry finally finished their project of extracting nearly all of the money. These days, you’re more likely to have a hit because your song was in an advert than have your hit song used in an advert. Merchandising and the rest is pretty much your principal revenue stream.
Imagine your dog had a dog trainer and you didn’t know the dog had been trained to bite under those circumstances. You might have a case against the trainer.
you, the dog owner, would have a case against the trainer.
you, the person being bitten, would not give two craps about some story from the dog owner about how they hired a bad dog trainer who against their wishes secretly trained them to bite people.
you have been bitten. you have a case against the owner of the dog who bit you.
*not at all
reply