Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jonovono | Hacker News Reader

Man, I don't know. LLMs (with the good and bad) feel like the first time a tool has genuinely been an extension of me. And quite the opposite. I'm a quite introverted person. Spending time in a meeting or talking with other humans I find quite exhausting. I don't really get that at all with talking with LLMs.

View on HN

It’s because large language models give a variable reward and it’s essentially an addiction that many people have not even recognized.

Yep, LLM chat is classic skinner box design. It’s effectively gambling.

In what sense is this true that isn't true of a simple web search?

A web search doesn't use isomorphic plagiarism of naive users work to sell to other users.

LLM are actually good at context search, but are mostly not being used as intended. The LLM hype bubble has to end sooner or later. =3

How does that answer the question or relate to variable reward and addiction mechanisms? This just seems another unrelated negative sentiment argument towards LLMs?

Not really, people are simply fooled by pernicious sycophantic idealism, and their own cognitive biases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_Turk

LLM are great for context search, but were never real "AI" in any sense except in media/PR sensationalism. Scientific hubris and unethical use of LLM is interesting as exposes the primitive impulsive nature of many. Best of luck =3

This is my read on how people react to LLM responses, especially about personal/social issues too - that many are fooled by the LLM. On occasion, someone has shown me LLM output, believing it to be a profound and illuminating response to their prompt.

Even being able to see the original prompt, the response just seemed kind of empty (blocking out the advertisingesque magnificent language leaves little substance behind), but somehow they were convinced that it was a coherent answer to their prompt and even peeved with me for not sharing their astonishment at how well it addressed their concerns.

It's a kind of symbiosis between the LLM and the prompter, where the prompter's own cognitive biases fill in what the LLM can not. Since I don't share their same biases, the response is nearly meaningless.

Very uncomfortable experience having to pretend to agree with how profound it is to not make their prompter upset.

Why did you pretend to agree with them?

Would a person with such biases, seeking validation from an LLM having been anything else without an LLM?

If everyone in real life are trying to avoid upsetting such person, the humans in their real life would offer the same experience, no? Or alternatively said person would go into conflict with anyone pointing out issues in their views, ending up only surrounding themselves with people who will agree with them in order to not upset them.

I guess my concern is why did you agree with them instead of using the opportunity to showcase another point of view?

Emotional intelligence. These interactions aren't people sharing points of view, they are sharing something they see as meaningful, and no matter how politely I convey it, it's still going to come off as "that sounds stupid and meaningless". It's not like I have better advice to give. Not worth dying on that hill.

What is your relation to those people? Because, what is the use of emotional intelligence if it doesn't help them to see their biases and instead confirms them. If presumably their biases are harmful for their lives?

I just see those excuses of "emotional intelligence" to stay dishonest in my life a lot, is that the right way to live though? In a way those LLMs are doing the same though, and in a lot of ways those people are then treated as some beings that can't handle the actual real world.

I guess, just in real life when talking to people, I would just not pretend and go along with something like this, so it's uncomfortable for me to also imagine that someone would go along just for the sake of not upsetting someone for some virtue called "emotional intelligence".

I can understand being polite for the sake of it to someone old and in their deathbed, but I just really don't like the idea of pretending or lying to people with their whole lives ahead and going counter to what you believe to be the truth for some social comfort or emotional intelligence aspect. If they can't handle whatever is the truth, it's their problem to deal with, but they better know alternative views to their malformed or harmful ideas of life.

They are acquaintances and friends, although not close friends. It's also unclear what their biases are since I can't read their minds, so there is no way of knowing if their biases are harmful for their lives. If I knew what their biases were, I would probably have had better understanding of what the output meant to them; hence the conclusion that we do not share the same biases.

I see emotional intelligence as a tool, not some virtue to uphold. Here it is identifying the value of a relationship and avoiding potentially breaking that relationship apart simply because one aspect of it is not optimal. Not every relationship needs to have perfect alignment with my beliefs.

But more importantly, I don't have enough information about them to properly navigate a conversation about their use of the LLM for advice.

> I just really don't like the idea of pretending or lying to people with their whole lives ahead and going counter to what you believe to be the truth for some social comfort or emotional intelligence aspect.

Fine, but you're also doing that for your own comfort, and not necessarily for the benefit of the other person. It can (and often does) cause the friendship to end before you've actually helped them understand what you want them to understand. I've lost friendships this way.

I'd rather keep the relationship intact and revisit the conversation when the time is right than risk abruptly ending the relationship with the same outcome where they go through their whole life with malformed or harmful ideas. You incorrectly assume that they would "know" the alternative views just by communicating, but much like their biases allowed them to "understand" the output of the LLM, their biases may disallow them from understanding the alternate views you are trying to impart.

Some of the people I hold in highest regard often disagree with my opinions. The key is we all agree on verifiable facts, and found interest in differing perspectives on the implications.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Poems_of_John_Godfrey_Sax...

Have a wonderful day, =3

And on the other hand talking to people, but I guess most extroverts in a way are "addicted" to talking to people as well, so it's a fair comparison. From my personal experience talking to people can end in wildly differing and unexpected results. In fact, I think rewards from LLMs are way more static as opposed to rewards from talking to people.

They used to call it schizophrenia, and put people in padded rooms for such delusions. Now, "AI" ego manipulation is a mental dildo for people that should know better philosophically. However, we shouldn't kink shame, so give this post a thumbs-down if you agree. lol =3

That is interesting, but also I do wonder, what in life doesn't have a variable reward? You could say that any routine activities like maybe cleaning, etc, is all the same, but most non routine things in life seem like they would have variable reward?

E.g. talking to people definitely yields in very variable rewards, if you do non routine work, there's constant variable rewards, etc.

Happiness is derived from a balance of a meaningful life, and pleasant experiences we may choose.

Also, one may have no pain or concerns, and still existentially despair over a meaningless life built on intelligence campaigns exploiting millions of people.

Only psychopaths find short lived joy in harming others, and only make up around 1% of general populations. Have a wonderful day =3

I think happiness is very complicated. Would you think there's a perfect formula to follow that will yield you the "happiness"? And how does this relate to different brain wirings of different people? Would you say per brain wiring there's a different specific ideal formula one would have to follow? E.g. there's some base things like getting proper sleep, exercise, diet, but then there's some more specific things for that brain wiring?

>Would you think there's a perfect formula

The advice comes from coursework most medical students must do in year 2. It is backed by research data on integrated healthcare programs.

Simply avoiding misery is not the whole equation. =3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO1mTELoj6o

Would you say you are happy as in you have solved happiness for yourself?

On occasion, as I often chose wisdom, logic, and indifferentism. =3

Do you mean those three things are what let you solve it, or that they're what kept you from solving it more often?

Philosophical indifferentism is part of it for sure. lol =3

And what is the reason for indifferentism as opposed to atheistic agnosticism?

Indeed, indifferentism must recognize both distinctive positions with similar regard. =3

I see, that totally makes sense. You got stuck there and there's just no way out.

Indeed, indifferentism must recognize both positions with similar regard. Then address ambiguity with logic and wisdom. For example, Bayes' theorem projects a reasonable expectation given available data. =3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q1dgn_C0AU

Wouldn't Bayes and logic lead you to immediately believe that some claims, ideas, and beliefs may be more logically sound or matter more than others, steering you away from indifferentism, but the reason why I thought you might be stuck is because you were indifferent to moving away from it.

On occasion, the wisdom of rational self-interest resolves a precedence of each area of metaphysical, imaginary, and scientific subject matter. Often, conflating each area of study leads to nonsensical contradictions.

For example, Bayes theorem does not guarantee the best outcome, but does offer the best unbiased choice at that moment. =3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

It's a slot machine that plays you.

> it’s essentially an addiction that many people have not even recognized

A little patronizing, no? Maybe some people actually like it, even if you or I don't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com