operatingthetan

That is called a leading question and it is not "perfectly reasonable." Resisting your attempts at bad faith discussion is not "reacting badly." I agree though that we should cease discussion.

Thank you for saying succinctly what I could not. If your consciousness and knowledge fundamentally does not change from your ongoing experience, then you are not learning. This is how the LLM currently functions.

I want to say I really appreciate that you are putting a lot of thought into this, you certainly have interesting concepts here. However I think it seems a bit far off from the discussion I'm trying to have, and I do not have the bandwidth to fully understand and charitably respond to your points.

Please stop trying to police what the subject is to suit your own arguments.

>which is what we're talking about.

You are anyway, I don't see anyone up the chain saying that.

A very important callout. It's the crux of the whole thing really. Humans are easily susceptible to deception by statements that are structured to be believable.

The machines have no driving force to act in the world. That is fundamental for humans.

Twice in your comment you suggest things that you think that I believe, please do not do this.

A free will versus determinism argument doesn't really have a place here. Consider instead that humans factually have 'the illusion of agency.' The LLM does not even that have that. It cannot act on it's own, it has no ongoing drama or intention. It only reacts to prompts.

I consider that to be the illusion of learning. You are not wrong, I think they may actually learn in the future though. But not today.

The big problem is often times they don't as well. That's why we can't rely on them.

LLMs do not learn. You put it out to pasture and create a new one. "Memory" in a session is essentially a context window party trick.

I think you're mildly obfuscating the issues at hand by diving too deeply into philosophical questions.

It's quite simple, the agency that the LLM appears to have is actually your own. Without a prompt an LLM does nothing. It has no thoughts between prompts about you or your problems.

The claim that we are assigning human-like agency to a machine with none is simple and factual.

>This is the root of AI psychosis. There’s a lot of unpack here, and I won’t go too deep because you can’t really have a discussion with affected folks because their fundamental basis is not evidence, it’s belief. Treating it as if it is an intelligence is the problem.

The problem is that AI psychosis is fundamentally the belief that an LLM is "thinking" at all. Outputs are just believable word vomit which resembles factual information.

Alright, well I guess I thought were were talking about naming apps after stimulant drugs lol.

There were mac apps called caffeine and amphetamine years ago.

I admire your pharma knowledge.

So now we're naming apps after obscure Modafinil derivatives?

>Talking like this is not only against the rules here but it is some of the most vile and direct insults I’ve ever fucking read. And it doesn’t even stem from us disagreeing. It stems from you misunderstanding what was said. Why don’t you read over what I wrote and my explanation before making such a stupid comment. Let me be clear. You’re not stupid, but your reply is stupid. And your reply is stupid because of a misunderstanding. So make yourself understand and clean up your act because shit like this dies worse damage for the world than psychopaths. More wars are started over misunderstanding and uncalibrated anger than actual psychopathic tendencies.

I suggest you practice a much greater degree of self awareness.

This story reads like a William Gibson novel. Wild times.

The companies seem to truly believe they will just have a handful of devs at that point manning large pools of AI agents. I doubt it though!

If you listen to gaming Youtube then the gaming industry is already in trouble from hardware costs and availability. I'm not sure if they are making a mountain out of a mole hill or not though.

>This is because people here are quietly realizing that they fell for the "token-maxxing" marketing drive which was complete BS for you to gamble more money on tokens as the big AI labs gave heavily subsidized token prices they cannot afford.

Good callout. All these "trends" in AI were definitely from the AI companies themselves in order to push the sales of more tokens. What's after agent orchestration? Whatever it is, it will involve a big spend.

I mean I can make a good meme with AI but it requires effort to ensure it is indistinguishable from a homegrown meme.

nope!

It's to the point where if you drop an AI meme or screenshot of text in chat people will mock you. I don't see that getting better?

It's sort of cargo-cult behavior to add them to non big corporate websites. Just like adding superfluous chat bots now.

>But looking more closely, Self-help had the steepest subcategory decline, with units down 26.3% year-over-year. Only two of 16 subcategories—crafts/hobbies/antiques/games and religion—grew at all (9.6% and 1.6%, respectively). The exceptions alone could make an interesting blog post for another time.

Self help being generally part of a larger grift pipeline for authors (for selling overpriced courses, seminars, retreats, infoproducts etc.), this is an actual positive silver lining for AI in society.

>“As per The Information, Meta employees used a total of 60.2 trillion AI tokens (!!) in 30 days. If this was charged at Anthropic’s API prices, it would cost $900M. Of course, Meta is likely purchasing tokens at a discount, but that could still come in at $100M+ – in large part from senseless “tokenmaxxing”.”

Holy shit, talking about perverse incentives!

Yep, the only way these things can have "memory" is by shoving previous conversations into the context window.