Sharing a ChatGPT Account with My Wife
startupbaniya.com
startupbaniya.com
The Machine Stops, E M Forster, 1909
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/72890/pg72890-images.ht...
The quote in question comes from the section "Part III: The Homeless".
This one is a step too far for me. Glad it's working out for you (for now) though.
The only thing I'd trust it for would be explanations about well documented concepts and strategies, but even that is better to get from a well respected Youtube channel or financial advice outlet.
(1) The agent is the ad (Facebook/Reddit) (2) Game Theory and Agent Reasoning (Subtle malevolent intentions in adversarial gameplay)
I suspect a decent open source llm would have a lot more transparency than the current methods of coagulating collective information
This is why I think ChatGpt can become the world's biggest ad company. Any recommendation it gives can be go through a bidding network where advertiser can bid for their keywords and ChatGpt can give the highest bidders recommendation.
Of Course it needs to give good or good enough recommendation, if the quality goes down then users will move somewhere else.
How is it so baked into the culture that "enshittify with ads and do the bare minimum" is the plan at this point?
What are you going to do when companies start winning based on offering good value for products with integrity?
Would you blindly copy that? How long would it take?
Is the drive to enshittify nature or nurture?
Argh.
I'll wake up.
But I think there's good reasons for believing that people as individuals and through collective efforts at institutional levels are capable of doing the work of making these distinctions. And for understanding the doubts not as hard one intellectual achievements that have improved upon things, but as cynical and self-interested attempts to dispute consensus knowledge in painted as biased as is now happening with attacks on Wikipedia.
So I'm actually not concerned about our inability to do Build out and deploy reliable information. I think what I am concerned about is the financial incentives that could complicate that as well as the misinformation environment which seeks to challenge and dispute the possibility of consensus knowledge, and people impressionable to those misinformation campaigns.
* Objective knowledge
* Consensus knowledge
Consensus knowledge is not the same thing as objective knowledge, nor is it in and of itself a Good Thing.
Consensus knowledge is simply the current consensus of a specific group of people, who themselves bring a ton of subjectivity to their analysis. The smaller that group and the more self-selecting it is, the lower the value of their consensus, because of necessity they represent only a tiny fraction of the sum total of human experience. And the larger the group is and the more dynamic the selection process, the more difficult it becomes to summarize their perspective into any sort of consensus knowledge.
Objective knowledge is not consensus knowledge, objective knowledge is the platonic ideal to which consensus knowledge aspires.
Conflating consensus knowledge with objective knowledge is how we ended up in a place where so many people across the board question the idea that objective truth even exists! Instead of where the scientific method started—with a philosophy built around the idea that there is objective truth and we are capable of better and better modeling it through rigorous tests—we're in a place where some people have conflated the map for the territory, leading others to question whether the territory exists at all.
I acknowledge that these are distinct concepts, but there's nothing in what I said above where I'm equating them. At least on charitable interpretation.
I'm also not sure what I agree with much or any of your supplementary analysis. Just to pick one example, I don't think our confidence in the measurement of the Higgs Boson is in any way contaminated by the fact that the consensus on it exists within a self-selected academic community, or that it fails to sufficiently sample the global population.
The wild part is that it would always lie about why it was doing it, not disclosing anything about the framework or intent of injecting that content into its responses. Yes at some level it's obvious it would do that, but it's also interesting to see it first hand.
I use ChatGPT all of the time to clarify my thoughts like this and NotebookLM actually comes up with some good questions I didn’t think about when doing discovery with a client (cloud consulting). I put all of the collected artifacts - transcripts, statements of work and anything else I collect during discovery.
Yes both ChatGPT (if we turn off sharing content for training) and NotebookLM is specifically allowed by my company and we use GSuite as our office standard
It sounds innocent enough, but your parallel to psychotherapy is I think very spot on. You need trust in your therapist and they also do their best to be non directive and let you explore your own state. When you tell your therapist you have self-harm thought, it makes a world of difference when they ask what happened vs what tools do you think you need.
To me, my train of thought is the last part I want involvement from a third party I have no trust in.
That part sounded way worse to me. In the end she may be fully understandind the contracts and ramifications and it doesn't matter where the bits and parts came from...but that really doesn't sound like it, and we're talking legal documents.
While "index fund" sounds plain and boring, it's an inplicit vote for the status quo and binding one's fortune to the current market leaders, effectively supporting them.
They're a vote that you think the economy as a whole (us, eu, worldwide) will go up not that particular companies will go up.
Of course if some political figures succeeded in destroying things there may be a large recession in which case index funds may do badly for a couple of years but if you think there will eventually be a recovery and end up higher then its still worth it.
That's the sales pitch.
The other side of the coin is any company that is influencial enough to bring part of the market down if it fails will also hold index funds as hostages. The more index funds are chosen the more "too big to fail" companies impact people's savings as a whole.
Whatever you think of the next behemoth being caught red handed doing something egregiously criminal, it's survival will be partly guaranteed by index funds.
It's fine to use as a brainstorming tool especially as a decent freestyle cook. It's equivalent to reading three recipes for the same dish and going from there.
However, if you are a strict recipe-follower or lack kitchen confidence, like my wife, you're gonna need a recipe that has actually been cooked by a human before, ideally one you have some faith in.
She loves being able to give it a set of ingredients and have it suggest and create recipes that use the things we have on hand.
This is my new favorite meme template.
> Even small things—if I can still eat those eggs or where to travel next—are now AI-assisted.
Both of these are true for my wife and me as well. It's incredible how valuable these LLMs are for short, quick answers in the day of SEO laden crapware on the internet.
For coding (side-projects), I find CLINE super valuable and use it quite often to get refactoring ideas.
All I see is a society in which people are stretched insanely thin (even the software engineers work on monetized side projects, for god's sake), where basic needs like proper education and time to focus are degrading or too expensive, where information gathering has been totally co-opted by advertisers and grifter—LLMs are a suboptimal solution to what are inherently structural social problems that arise from a distribution of wealth and organization of labor. LLMs do not address this. Give it five more years and they'll be totally integrated into advertising and extracting capital from users too, and they'll be just as useless as search has become today.
> “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”
First, I would argue that LLM provide incredibly value today. From language learning, asking about how to a specific manufacturing machine works, to simply grabbing the time zone of a city I list. They had value and are only getting better. Search still exists but I wonder in a few years if it still exists like we see today.
Second, your framing is truly of the doom and gloom of humanity. I dont think we are stretched any more than we have been in the past. Things are different for sure, both the success and problems, but what a time to be alive, I can watch media from all around the world and have a LLM speak with me through any query I have.
Lastly, I just don’t think search is that bad. I pay for Kagi but the vanilla google experience is not the end of the world. You still can generally find what you want.
I look at posts like these for evidence about whether I should use AI more than I do. (I use it little and don’t pay for it.) What we have here is a devotional post on the order of “I prayed to Jesus and my life is better now.”
The basic problem is that this form of writing and testimonial cannot carry the information necessary to meet the needs of a critical thinker. For instance: recipes. Googling a typical recipe takes 5 seconds. It can hardly get any easier! And it takes me right to someone's specific website. But with ChatGPT there is some significant probability of hallucination, and the answer I get is one no human stands behind. How is this even worth mentioning as a benefit?
That the poster includes recipes tells us about his unserious standards.
Among all the problems of LLMs in society, the noise created by people who are likely in the throes of sunk cost bias, endowment effect, ostrich effect, and other biases is not helping matters.
Which you then have to assess for believability, just like ChatGPT. And read the comments and incorporate their reactions, or know enough to not need them (but then the search isn’t contributing much, is it?).
> But with ChatGPT there is some significant probability of hallucination
As opposed to ending up on a bogus SEO-“created” web site.
I guess fake recipes are more obvious, but I see a lot of BS on the low end of online recipes too.
I don’t understand how there is any comparison. The only way I can assess the reliability of an LLM is by doing hundreds of trials, analyzing each one for correctness— a gargantuan task. And it’s not like OpenAI has ever done such testing! And even if I did that work (which I HAVE done in other contexts while researching LLM reliability) I cannot assume that it will remain reliable when the model is updated.
Meanwhile there are well known social forces that act on humans to encourage them to not put poison into their recipes. No such force acts on ChatGPT until a kid gets poisoned or some outrageous recipe goes viral.
Sometimes I wonder if certain other people are using some different Internet than I use.
I have no mechanism but it feels true.
I really, really want to make a joke here, but it would be so sexist I'd get voted down in an instant.
I met a sculptor recently (reasonable thirst for knowledge; but not from greece) who went straight for deepseek to ask a question. That surprised me. Obviously deepseek was in the news, but the way they train seems to be more aligned with the aforementioned way of thinking than openai.